MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Potential role of immunosenescence in cancer development

2010· review· en· W1616315157 on OpenAlex
Tamàs Fülöp, Rami Kotb, Carl Fortin, Graham Pawelec, Flávia De Angelis, Anis Larbi

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

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunosenescenceImmunosurveillanceImmune systemCarcinogenesisCancerImmunologyMechanism (biology)BiologyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence and prevalence of most cancers increase with age. The reasons for this may include tumor escape mechanisms and decreased immunosurveillance, but most are caused by the time required for carcinogenesis, according to most scientists. The immune system is a unique mechanism of defense against pathogens and possibly cancers; however, there is a body of evidence that the immune system of the aged is eroded, a phenomenon termed immunosenescence. There is a growing interest in immunosenescence and how it may contribute to the increased number of cancers with aging. Each arm of the immune system, innate and adaptive, is altered with aging, contributing to increased tumorigenesis. Understanding the contribution of immunosenescence to cancer development and progression may lead to better interventions for the elderly.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.286 · 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