MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391359895 · doi:10.1186/s12943-024-01941-z

Mapping cancer biology in space: applications and perspectives on spatial omics for oncology

2024· review· en· W4391359895 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaMinistry of Trade, Industry and EnergyNational Research Foundation
KeywordsContext (archaeology)BiologyComputational biologyDECIPHEROmicsSystems biologyPrecision oncologyTumor microenvironmentCancerBioinformaticsData scienceComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technologies to decipher cellular biology, such as bulk sequencing technologies and single-cell sequencing technologies, have greatly assisted novel findings in tumor biology. Recent findings in tumor biology suggest that tumors construct architectures that influence the underlying cancerous mechanisms. Increasing research has reported novel techniques to map the tissue in a spatial context or targeted sampling-based characterization and has introduced such technologies to solve oncology regarding tumor heterogeneity, tumor microenvironment, and spatially located biomarkers. In this study, we address spatial technologies that can delineate the omics profile in a spatial context, novel findings discovered via spatial technologies in oncology, and suggest perspectives regarding therapeutic approaches and further technological developments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it