MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991295531 · doi:10.1517/14712598.3.2.319

RETRACTED: Biotherapeutic approaches to pancreatic cancer

2003· review· en· W1991295531 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Rosenberg, Mark Lipsett

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonDuplication of/in Article;Euphemisms for Duplication;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;
Date10/9/2012 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPancreatic cancerCancer researchMedicineMetastasisImmunotherapyCancerAngiogenesisMonoclonal antibodyImmunologyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas has risen steadily over the past four decades. Since pancreatic cancer is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage and because of the lack of effective therapies, the prognosis of such patients is extremely poor. Despite advances in our understanding of the molecular biology of pancreatic cancer, the systemic treatment of this disease remains unsatisfactory. Conventional chemotherapy has not produced dramatic improvements in response rates or patient survival. New treatment strategies are clearly needed. This paper will review emerging therapies for pancreatic carcinoma. A deeper understanding of the molecular biology of cell growth and proliferation, as well as of neoplastic cell transformation, has led to advances in several areas, including the use of hormones and antihormones as adjuvant therapy; inhibition of tumour growth and metastasis by inhibitors of matrix metalloproteases and angiogenesis, and by small molecules, such as retinoids, which interfere with progression through the cell cycle; immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies; disruption of intracellular signal transduction with farnesyltransferase inhibitors; and, finally, gene therapy with specifically designed vaccines.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.012

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 head0.653
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.152 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207