MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1952352960 · doi:10.1002/ptr.5327

A Review: Phytochemicals Targeting JAK/STAT Signaling and IDO Expression in Cancer

2015· review· en· W1952352960 on OpenAlexafffund
Niroshaathevi Arumuggam, Neil A. Bhowmick, H.P. Vasantha Rupasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotherapy Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanada Research ChairsU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsJanus kinasestatSTAT proteinJAK-STAT signaling pathwaySignal transductionCurcuminSTAT3Cancer researchBiologyCancer cellCell growthCell signalingCell biologyCancerPharmacologyTyrosine kinaseBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer remains a major health problem worldwide. Among many other factors, two regulatory defects that are present in most cancer cells are constitutive activation of Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling pathway and the induction of indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase (IDO), an enzyme that catalyzes tryptophan degradation, through JAK/STAT signaling. Cytokine signaling activates STAT proteins in regulating cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival through modulation of target genes. Many phytochemicals can inhibit both JAK/STAT signaling and IDO expression in antigen-presenting cells by targeting different pathways. Some of the promising phytochemicals that are discussed in this review include resveratrol, cucurbitacin, curcumin, (-)-epigallocatechin gallate, and others. It is now evident that phytochemicals play key roles in inhibition of tumor proliferation and development and provide novel means for therapeutic targeting of cancer.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0050.002

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations79
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytotherapy ResearchSame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207