MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407152485 · doi:10.1186/s43094-025-00768-9

Cancer multi-omics-based differential expression analysis and prognostic potential of identified hub targets of myco-metabolites for breast carcinoma and lung carcinoma

2025· article· en· W4407152485 on OpenAlexaff
Singh Shreya, Debadatta Mohapatra, Gaurav Gopal Naik, Pooja Kathait, Soki Daeme Malang, Pradeep Kumar Patel, S. Shambhavi, Gulzar Alam, Alakh N. Sahu

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Human Resource DevelopmentMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsBreast carcinomaBreast cancerCarcinomaLung cancerLungCancerMedicineOmicsCancer researchComputational biologyOncologyBiologyPathologyBioinformaticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Breast carcinoma (BC) and lung carcinoma (LC) have the highest incidence and mortality rates worldwide. In prior work, studied sample hub targets contributing to anticancer potential against BC and LC were identified through network pharmacology. In the present work, web servers UALCAN, GEPIA2, and KM plotter were used to explore the genomic and proteomic expression of these hub targets, along with their prognosis potential in BC and LC. Results Differential hub targets SRC, MAPK3, PTPN11, JAK2, ESR1, and HAP900A1 for BC and PTPN11, JAK2, ESR1, EGFR, and MAPK3 for LC, showed good prognostic potentials. Collectively, PTPN11, JAK2, and ESR1 were overlapped differential expressed hub targets involved in the significantly good prognosis of both carcinoma. Conclusion These differentially expressed hub targets may be taken into account for future BC and LC treatments due to their strong prognostic potential.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture Journal of Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicMicrobial Natural Products and BiosynthesisFrench-language works237,207