MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017265537 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2013.00023

Can pharmacological receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sensitize poor outcome breast tumors to immune-based therapies?

2013· article· en· W2017265537 on OpenAlexafffund
Josie Ursini‐Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSusan G. Komen for the Cure
KeywordsMedicineTyrosine kinaseImmune systemCancer researchReceptor tyrosine kinaseOncologyReceptorBreast cancerInternal medicineImmunologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) drive breast cancer progression, particularly in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and basal tumors, the two worst prognosis subtypes. Tumor cells recruit host stromal components, including immune cells, which strongly influence disease progression. This has been studied in human breast cancer and translated to murine models of breast cancer. Stromal immune components including cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and natural killer cells, destroy cancer cells through a process termed immune surveillance. Unfortunately, clinically detectable tumors escape these immune protective effects through their ability to limit the infiltration, activation, and/or survival of CTLs in breast tumors. The immunosuppressed state of established tumors limits the success rate of immune-based therapies, and possibly other therapeutic modalities that depend on host immunity. Published studies demonstrate that RTKs facilitate breast cancer progression, in part, by establishing immune suppression. This raises the intriguing possibility that pharmacological RTK inhibitors may be exploited to sensitize breast cancer patients to immune-based therapies.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207