MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000708671 · doi:10.1517/14712598.6.11.1113

Clinical applications of virosomes in cancer immunotherapy

2006· review· en· W2000708671 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Adamina, Ulrich Güller, Laura Bracci, Michael Heberer, Giulio C. Spagnoli, Reto Schumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyCancer immunotherapyMedicineCancerCancer vaccineAntigenImmunologyMelanomaImmune systemCancer researchInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer immunotherapy is increasingly accepted as a treatment option for advanced stage disease. The identification of tumour-associated antigens in 1991 has prompted the development of antigen-specific immunotherapeutic strategies for a variety of cancers. Many of them result in some immunological responses in cancer patients; however, clinical results were not observed concomitantly with immunological responses; therefore, further improvements in the field of immunotherapy are urgently needed. Virosomes are lipidic envelopes devoid of genetic information, but which retain the antigenic profile and fusogenic properties from their viral origin. Virosomes are versatile antigen carriers and can be engineered to perform various tasks in cancer immunotherapy. Preclinical data have fostered the development of innovative clinical protocols. Hence, immunopotentiating reconstituted influenza virosomes will be assessed in breast and melanoma immunotherapy, and may contribute to the development of clinically effective cancer vaccines and ultimately improve patient outcomes. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the potential clinical applications of virosomes as innovative and potentially effective reagents in active specific 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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207