MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1795246178 · doi:10.1586/14737140.2015.1064769

The role of clusterin in prostate cancer: treatment resistance and potential as a therapeutic target

2015· review· en· W1795246178 on OpenAlexaff
Lateef A Muhammad, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClusterin in disease pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClusterinMedicineProstate cancerRadiation therapyCancerOncologyProstateChemotherapyCancer researchInternal medicineApoptosisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistance to cancer treatment can arise through multiple mechanisms and negatively impacts on progression rates and survival times. New therapies targeting pathways underlying resistance would improve treatment outcomes and be of particular value in the treatment of prostate cancer, many of whom develop tumors refractory to radiation, hormonal therapy and chemotherapy regimens. The improved understanding of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer progression mechanisms has broadened the therapeutic window by unveiling multiple molecular targets. Several approaches are being investigated to overcome resistance in prostate cancer, including the use of novel taxanes and tubulin inhibitors, and the inhibition of cell survival pathways. This review focuses on clusterin, a small heat-shock-like protein that is overexpressed in many types of solid tumors; we summarize the preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the rationale for targeting clusterin as a means to resensitize prostate tumors to radiation and chemotherapy agents.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicClusterin in disease pathologyFrench-language works237,207