MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061342795 · doi:10.2174/156800906777723976

Radiation-Induced Bystander and other Non-Targeted Effects: Novel Intervention Points in Cancer Therapy?

2006· review· en· W2061342795 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Cancer Drug Targets · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanada Research ChairsIrish Research CouncilScience Foundation IrelandTechnological University DublinNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBystander effectDNA damageRadiation therapyCancer researchCancerCancer cellMedicineApoptosisBiologyImmunologyDNAGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major problem in the search for new cancer drug targets is that the drugs are often toxic to normal tissues and require high doses to kill tumor cells. Therefore cellular targets which appear to involve low dose responses to cancer therapy are especially interesting since they could selectively target normal tissues which are not targeted by the treatment and thus may be responsible for unpleasant side effects or may be amenable to exploitation in order to improve the therapeutic ratio. One such target, which is the subject of this review, is radiation-induced bystander effects [RIBE], which result in the observation of radiation like responses in cells which have not been irradiated. RIBE is a novel phenomenon which indicates that at low doses, cell signaling is more important than direct DNA damage. Historically, DNA has always been considered to be the target for radiation therapy. The growing realization that signaling is important opens up several important therapeutic strategies which will be discussed in this review. RIBE appears to be the result of a generalized stress response in tissues or cells which is expressed at the level of the tissue, organ or organism rather than at the level of the individual cell. The signals may be produced by all exposed cells, but the response may require a quorum of cells in order to be expressed. The major response involving low LET (x- or gamma-ray) radiation exposure discussed in the existing literature is a death response. This has many characteristics of apoptosis but may be detected in cell lines without p53 expression, although the death response is suppressed in many tumor cell lines. While a death response in unirradiated normal cells around a tumor might appear to be adverse, it can in fact be protective and remove damaged cells from the population. If harnessed correctly, it could lead to the development of new drugs aimed not at tissue destruction but at enabling homeostatic mechanisms to control tumor expansion. In this scenario, the level of harmful or beneficial response will be related to the background damage, carried by the cell population, and the genetic programme determining response to damage. This focus may be important when attempting to predict the consequences of mixed therapies involving radiation and other cytotoxic agents. In this review, our current knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the induction of bystander effects by ionizing radiation is reviewed, and the question of how bystander effects may be harnessed to produce a new generation of anti-cancer drugs aimed at stabilization of tissue homeostasis rather than tissue destruction is considered.

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.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.349 · 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