MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Known and putative mechanisms of resistance to EGFR targeted therapies in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations-a review.

2015· review· en· W1842992197 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erin Stewart, Samuel Zhixing Tan, Geoffrey Liu, Ming‐Sound Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsT790MMedicineLung cancerEpidermal growth factor receptorTargeted therapyCancerAcquired resistanceExonMutationCancer researchDiseaseEGFR inhibitorsBioinformaticsOncologyGeneInternal medicineGefitinibBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in Canada with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being the predominant form of the disease. Tumor characterization can identify cancer-driving mutations as treatment targets. One of the most successful examples of cancer targeted therapy is inhibition of mutated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which occurs in ~10-30% of NSCLC patients. While this treatment has benefited many patients with activating EGFR mutations, almost all who initially benefited will eventually acquire resistance. Approximately 50% of cases of acquired resistance (AR) are due to a secondary T790M mutation in exon 20 of the EGFR gene; however, many of the remaining mechanisms of resistance are still unknown. Much work has been done to elucidate the remaining mechanisms of resistance. This review aims to highlight both the mechanisms of resistance that have already been identified in patients and potential novel mechanisms identified in preclinical models which have yet to be validated in the patient settings.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations310
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207