MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059146777 · doi:10.1089/hum.2010.227

Strategies to Enhance Viral Penetration of Solid Tumors

2011· review· en· W2059146777 on OpenAlexaff
Elspeth K. Smith, Jessica A. Breznik, Brian D. Lichty

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Gene Therapy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncolytic virusPenetration (warfare)Bystander effectStromal cellVirusExtracellular matrixCancer researchBiologyVirologyImmunologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficient delivery of viral vectors to tumors is an active area of investigation. A number of barriers exist that must be overcome to achieve good penetration of vectors into tumors and distribution of their effects throughout the tumor mass. Replicating oncolytic viruses have the advantage of being able to amplify the initial dose, but progeny virus are prevented from spreading because of a dense mass of tightly packed cells with a dense extracellular matrix, admixed normal stromal cells, and high interstitial pressure. Although intratumoral injection may ensure initial delivery the distribution achieved by intravenous administration may be superior and come with beneficial bystander damage to the tumor vasculature. Strategies to enhance intravenous delivery and subsequent spread of these vectors within tumors are being developed by a number of groups. Achieving the goal of efficient penetration and spread of viruses within solid tumors is a necessary prerequisite to significant improvements in virus-vectored therapy of solid tumors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Gene TherapySame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207