MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immunosenescence and Cancer

2013· review· en· W2071543540 on OpenAlexafffund
Tamàs Fülöp, Anis Larbi, Jacek M. Witkowski, Rami Kotb, Katsuiku Hirokawa, Graham Pawelec

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews™ in Oncogenesis · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunosenescenceImmune systemCancerContext (archaeology)ImmunologyAcquired immune systemBiologyInflammationTumor microenvironmentCancer researchMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The immune system, interacting intimately with the cancer cells in a tumor, may combat or favor cancer development and progression, or both. One of the most important risk factors for solid cancers is age. With increasing age, numerous alterations at multiple levels including molecular, cellular, organ, and systemic are occurring. With age many physiological systems are changing, including the immune system. Several alterations occur in both arms of the immune system with aging. Although the innate immune system shows changes with aging, the most important alterations occur in the adaptive immune system, especially involving T cells. Many changes in the immune system may decrease its capacity to combat the emerging or progressing tumor. Further, the age-related immune changes may favor the cancer development. The most important changes which may decrease the immune response efficiency are the changes in T cell functions and phenotypes, concomitant with the presence of a low-grade inflammation. A consensus is now emerging in oncology that not only the cancer cells themselves should be studied but also their macro- and microenvironments. In this context, the study of the interrelation of the immune response and the tumor at various stages is essential to enhance our capacity for intervention in elderly cancer patients.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations96
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews™ in OncogenesisSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207