MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096439179 · doi:10.1586/eci.10.102

Stimulating natural killer cells to protect against cancer: recent developments

2011· review· en· W2096439179 on OpenAlexafffund
Amy Gillgrass, Ali A. Ashkar

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Immunology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunologyMedicineCancerContext (archaeology)Cancer immunotherapyCancer cellImmunotherapyCancer researchInnate immune systemBiologyImmune systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current cancer immunotherapies have begun to target cell types involved in innate immunity, such as natural killer (NK) cells that recognize and kill tumor cells. Recent advances in the study of NK cell biology have generated interest in manipulating these cells to generate anti-tumor responses. A rise in the number of activated NK cells has been shown to prevent and treat cancer in many preclinical models and is a positive clinical factor in human tumors. This article will focus on recent research on the ability of IL-15 and Toll-like receptor ligands to stimulate NK cell activity against cancer. The potential of these therapies, both alone and in conjunction with traditional and other vaccine platforms, will be reviewed. The current status of these therapies in clinical trials will also be discussed. Targeting these cell types in the context of human cancers may be an essential factor in future cancer treatments.

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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical ImmunologySame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207