MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119690067 · doi:10.2174/156720111795256219

Part II: Targeted Particles for Imaging of Anticancer Immune Responses

2011· review· en· W2119690067 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Hung, Samar Hamdy, Azita Haddadi, Zahra Ghotbi, Afsaneh Lavasanifar

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Drug Delivery · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmune systemCancer researchMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interaction of dendritic cells (DCs) and T cells has been the cornerstone of approaches to cancer immunotherapy. Antitumoral immune responses can be elicited by delivering cancer antigens to DCs. As antigen presenting cells, these DCs activate cancer antigen specific T cells. Whereas the first part of the review discusses methods for delivery of cancer vaccines to DCs, in this part the focus is on the potential role of nanoscopic devices for molecular imaging of these immune responses. Nanoscopic devices could potentially deliver tracking molecules to DCs, enabling monitoring of DCs and/or T cell activation and tumoricidal activity during immunotherapy, using non-invasive imaging modalities such as nuclear imaging (single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET)), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and optical imaging. Keywords: Cancer vaccines, dendritic cells, immunomonitoring, nanotechnology, targeting, Antitumoral immune, nanoscopic devices, tomography, endoscopy, mediastinoscopy, laparoscopy

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Drug DeliverySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207