MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117496910 · doi:10.1517/13543776.18.9.975

Structural biology in the battle against BCR-Abl

2008· article· en· W2117496910 on OpenAlexaff
Bhushan Nagar

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersVertex PharmaceuticalsBristol-Myers SquibbBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsImatinibChronic myelogenous leukemiaTyrosine kinaseDrug resistanceABLTyrosine-kinase inhibitorDrugCancer researchPharmacologyMedicineLeukemiaBiologyCancerImmunologyMyeloid leukemiaInternal medicineReceptorGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The clinical success of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib (Gleevec; STI-571) in the treatment of several leukemias has emphasized the proof-of-concept that molecularly targeted drug design is a viable approach to cancer therapy. However, the emergence of imatinib-resistant phenotypes has spurred a vast amount of research towards finding newer and more potent kinase inhibitors that can overcome drug resistance. Unexpectedly, the newest inhibitors are often less specific than imatinib, inhibiting not only BCR-Abl (the target of imatinib), but also the Src family of tyrosine kinases, which have recently been shown to be downstream effectors of BCR-Abl. Objective: This review summarizes some of the new BCR-Abl inhibitors that have followed from the teaming of combinatorial library searches and structure-based drug design, giving attention to the structural aspects of drug recognition. Conclusion: The use of lower-specificity inhibitors seemingly undermines the rationale behind targeted therapy, yet it appears to be a critical aspect of overcoming drug resistance. Combination therapy with a cocktail of drugs, including an inhibitor of the T315I resistance mutation, will be the next maneuver in the battle against BCR-Abl in the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic PatentsSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207