MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969666177 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-2602

Abstract 2602: The cardiotoxicity and myocyte damage caused by small molecule anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitors is correlated with lack of target specificity

2010· article· en· W1969666177 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian B. Hasinoff, Daywin Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSunitinibTyrosine kinaseLapatinibCardiotoxicityDasatinibMedicineImatinibTyrosine-kinase inhibitorPharmacologyNilotinibKinaseGefitinibErlotinibSorafenibCancerInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistryReceptorToxicityBreast cancerEpidermal growth factor receptorTrastuzumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of the new anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) has revolutionized the treatment of certain cancers. However, the use of some of these results in cardiotoxicity. Large scale profiling data recently made available for the binding of 7 of the 9 FDA-approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors to a panel of 317 kinases has allowed us to correlate kinase inhibitor binding selectivity scores with TKI-induced damage to neonatal rat cardiac myocytes. The 7 TKIs that were the subject of this study were: imatinib (Gleevec), sunitinib (Sutent), dasatinib (Sprycel), sorafenib (Nexavar), lapatinib (Tykerb), gefitinib (Iressa), and erlotinib (Tarceva). The tyrosine kinase selectivity scores, but not the serine-threonine kinase scores, were highly correlated with the myocyte damaging effects of the TKIs. Additionally, we showed that damage to myocytes gave a good rank order correlation with clinical cardiotoxicity. Finally, strength of TKI binding to colony stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) was highly correlated with myocyte damage, thus possibly implicating this kinase in contributing to TKI-induced cardiotoxicity. Support: CIHR and a Canada Research Chair in Drug Development to BBH. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2602.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.011

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207