MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093012990 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603025

The place of VEGF inhibition in the current management of renal cell carcinoma

2006· review· en· W2093012990 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Nathan, David Chao, C. Brock, Philip Savage, Mark Harries, Martin Gore, Tim Eisen

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutocrine signallingRenal cell carcinomaVascular endothelial growth factorAngiogenesisKidney cancerMedicineCancer researchCarcinomaVascular endothelial growth factor AKidneyOncologyVEGF receptorsInternal medicinePathologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is overexpressed in around 80% of patients with clear cell carcinoma of the kidney owing to the inactivation of von Hippel Lindau gene activity. VEGF stimulates angiogenesis and acts as an autocrine growth factor. A number of different agents are now available which target VEGF and its signalling pathways. A significant body of evidence has accumulated demonstrating that antagonism of VEGF and its downstream pathways is clinically useful in a significant proportion of patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma of the kidney. Enough data is now available to recommend that patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma of the kidney should at some point during the course of their disease be offered entry into a clinical trial enabling exposure to a targeted inhibitor of VEGF or its signalling pathways. Assuming early clinical trial data is substantiated by ongoing registration studies, efforts should be made to minimise the time taken between licensing and general availability of these active agents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207