MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982443638 · doi:10.2217/imt.14.108

Lentiviral Vectors in Cancer Immunotherapy

2015· article· en· W1982443638 on OpenAlexaff
Robyn A. A. Oldham, Elliot Berinstein, Jeffrey A. Medin

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunotherapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyViral vectorCancer immunotherapyCancerInsertional mutagenesisImmune systemGenetic enhancementVector (molecular biology)MedicineComputational biologyGene deliveryEffectorClinical trialBiologyImmunologyCancer researchBioinformaticsGeneGenomeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basic science advances in cancer immunotherapy have resulted in various treatments that have recently shown success in the clinic. Many of these therapies require the insertion of genes into cells to directly kill them or to redirect the host's cells to induce potent immune responses. Other analogous therapies work by modifying effector cells for improved targeting and enhanced killing of tumor cells. Initial studies done using γ-retroviruses were promising, but safety concerns centered on the potential for insertional mutagenesis have highlighted the desire to develop other options for gene delivery. Lentiviral vectors (LVs) have been identified as potentially more effective and safer alternative delivery vehicles. LVs are now in use in clinical trials for many different types of inherited and acquired disorders, including cancer. This review will discuss current knowledge of LVs and the applications of this viral vector-based delivery vehicle to cancer immunotherapy.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunotherapySame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207