MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117353601 · doi:10.1517/14656566.1.4.623

Replicating herpes simplex virus vectors for cancer gene therapy

2000· review· en· W2117353601 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia N. Yeung, Frank Tufaro

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilWorld Health Organization
KeywordsOncolytic virusHerpes simplex virusMedicineVirusDiseaseGenetic enhancementCancerRadiation therapyCancer cellVirologyChemotherapyVector (molecular biology)Cancer researchImmunologyHSL and HSVGeneBiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attenuated viral vectors based on herpes simplex virus (HSV) are capable of killing cancer cells directly while sparing normal tissue in animal models of disease. This selective ability is likely due to the evolutionary constraints on the virus to establish lifelong infection in its host without causing destruction of normal tissues. However, extensive experimental animal data show that cancer cells are able to sustain a productive viral infection, which ultimately leads to cell death and tumour regression. Moreover, preliminary results generated in two Phase I clinical studies of modified replicating HSV for the treatment of brain tumours (e.g., glioblastoma multiforme) have been encouraging and suggest that the safety data generated in animals are predictive of human safety. Although much progress has been made in developing oncolytic HSV vectors for clinical use, there is still a long way to go to determine which combinations of virus, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy will provide improved therapy for the control and eradication of a variety of human cancers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207