MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068932629 · doi:10.2741/2921

Immuno-gene therapy approaches for cancer: from in vitro studies to clinical trials

2008· review· en· W2068932629 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyImmune systemClinical trialCancer immunotherapyMedicineCancerCompendiumGenetic enhancementImmunologyComputational biologyBioinformaticsCancer researchGeneBiologyInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immunotherapy against cancer basically aims at either broadly stimulating the immune system or at engineering an immune response against a targeted tumor associated antigen (TAA). In this review, we focus on the translation of immuno-gene therapy strategies into clinical trials for various cancers. Rather than being an exhaustive compendium of the literature, the focus of this article is to underline how anti-cancer immunotherapy strategies have evolved recently. Previously, studies have used different vectors to either express immuno-stimulatory molecules or a targeted TAA. Investigators are now directing efforts to both target a TAA and to stimulate the immune system by direct or viral administration of cytokines or co-stimulatory molecules. Some groups have also tried to combine genetic immunotherapy with chemotherapy, and results have been encouraging. This novel concept might open new perspectives for the treatment of patients with advanced-stage cancer.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.101 · 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