MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932095640 · doi:10.7759/cureus.344

Abscopal Effects: Case Report and Emerging Opportunities

2015· article· en· W1932095640 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Lock, Ahmad Muinuddin, Walter Kocha, Robert Dinniwell, George Rodrigues, David D’Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreTrillium Health CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbscopal effectMedicineBystander effectImmune systemLung cancerHepatocellular carcinomaRadiation therapyImmunotherapyCancer researchOncologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abscopal effect is a phenomenon observed in the treatment of metastatic cancer where localized irradiation of a particular tumor site causes a response in a site distant to the irradiated volume. The mechanisms of the abscopal effect are speculated to be of several origins, including distant effects on p53, elaboration of inflammatory agents including cytokines, and, most recently, secondary to immune mechanisms. In this case report, we present a rare report of a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma with lung metastases who, after receiving radiation treatment to the liver, had a treatment response in the liver and a complete response in the lung. Recent advances in the understanding of the primary role of immune-modulated cytotoxicity, especially with the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors, have the potential to turn the abscopal effect from a rare phenomenon into a tool to guide antineoplastic therapy and provide a new line of research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207