MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008335082 · doi:10.1196/annals.1281.020

Clusterin and IGFBPs as Antisense Targets in Prostate Cancer

2003· review· en· W2008335082 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Gleave, Burkhard Jansen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClusterin in disease pathology
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClusterinProstate cancerCancerCancer researchTumor progressionMetastasisProstateMedicineBiologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineApoptosisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary hurdle to improved survival of advanced prostate cancer is our failure to prevent or treat the tumor's progression to its lethal and untreatable stage of androgen independence. Novel treatment modalities designed to prevent androgen-independent progression including prostate cancer metastasis are required. Accelerated identification and characterization of cancer-relevant molecular targets has sparked considerable interest in the development of new generations of anticancer agents that specifically inhibit a progression-relevant target. Antisense oligonucleotides, short synthetic stretches of chemically modified DNA capable of specifically hybridizing to the mRNA of a chosen cancer-relevant target gene, promise to show enhanced specificity for malignant cells with a favorable side-effect profile due to well-defined and tailored modes of action. Although not all of the challenges have been met to date, emerging clinical evidence supports the premise that antisense oligonucleotides stand a realistic chance of emerging as major partners of rationally designed anticancer regimens. The rationale and status of antisense targeting of the treatment resistance factor clusterin and of insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP) 2 and 5 are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicClusterin in disease pathologyFrench-language works237,207