MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2024654923 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100013159

Stem Cells in Brain Tumour Development and Therapy- Two-Sides of the Same Coin

2012· review· en· W2024654923 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Cathy Lee, Sandra E. Dunn, Stephen Yip

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyMedicineStem cellNeuropilCancer stem cellBrain cancerBrain tumorCancerNeurosciencePathologyBiologyInternal medicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary brain tumours are difficult to manage clinically due to their abilities to invade adjacent tissue and infiltrate distant neuropil. These contribute to challenges in surgical management and also limit the effectiveness of radiotherapy. Despite initial responses to chemotherapy, most tumours become chemo-resistant, leading to relapse. Recent identification and isolation of brain cancer stem cells (BCSCs) have broadened our understanding of the molecular pathogenesis and potential Achilles' heel of brain tumours. BCSCs are thought to drive and propagate the tumour and therefore present an important target for further investigations. This review explores the history of the discovery of BCSCs and the evolving concept of "cancer stem cells" in neuro-oncology. We attempt to present a balanced view on the subject and also to update the readers on the molecular biology of BCSCs. Lastly, we outline the potential strategies to target BCSCs which will translate into specific and effective therapies for brain tumours.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→