MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069249210 · doi:10.1038/mt.2009.193

Targeting Cancer-initiating Cells With Oncolytic Viruses

2009· review· en· W2069249210 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy P. Cripe, Pin-Yi Wang, Paola Marcato, Yonatan Y. Mahller, Patrick WK Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsOncolytic virusCancerCancer cellCarcinogenesisBiologyVirusCancer researchPopulationCancer stem cellVirotherapyVirologyImmunologyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies in a variety of leukemias and solid tumors indicate that there is significant heterogeneity with respect to tumor-forming ability within a given population of tumor cells, suggesting that only a subpopulation of cells is responsible for tumorigenesis. These cells have been commonly referred to as cancer stem cells (CSCs) or cancer-initiating cells (CICs). CICs have been shown to be relatively resistant to conventional anticancer therapies and are thus thought to be responsible for disease relapse. As such, they represent a potentially critical therapeutic target. Oncolytic viruses are in clinical trials for cancer and kill cells through mechanisms different from conventional therapeutics. Because these viruses are not susceptible to the same pathways of drug or radiation resistance, it is important to learn whether CICs are susceptible to oncolytic virus infection. Here we review the available data regarding the ability of several different oncolytic virus types to target CICs for destruction.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.373
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 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

Citations79
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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