Intravital biobank and personalized cancer therapy: The correlation with omics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biobanks have played a decisive role in all aspects of the field of cancer, including pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. The significance of cancer biobanks is epitomized through the appropriate application of various "-omic" techniques (omics). The mutually motivated relationship between biobanks and omics has intensified the development of cancer research. Human cancer tissues that are maintained in intravital biobanks (or living tissue banks) retain native tumor microenvironment, tissue architecture, hormone responsiveness and cell-to-cell signalling properties. Intravital biobanks replicate the structural complexity and heterogeneity of human cancers, making them an ideal platform for preclinical studies. The application of omics with intravital biobanks renders them more active, which makes it possible for the cancer-related evaluations to be dynamically monitored on a real-time basis. Integrating intravital biobank and modern omics will provide a useful tool for the discovery and development of new drugs or novel therapeutic strategies. More importantly, intravital biobanks may play an essential role in the creation of meaningful patient-tailored therapies as for personalized medicine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".