MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127522299 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2013.00188

Epigenetic Therapy of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Decitabine (5-Aza-2′-Deoxycytidine)

2013· article· en· W2127522299 on OpenAlexaff
Richard L. Momparler

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecitabineLung cancerEpigeneticsDeoxycytidineOncologyMedicineInternal medicineCancer researchEpigenetic therapyAzacitidineCancerDNA methylationBiologyGeneticsGemcitabine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetic analysis shows that many genes that suppress malignancy are silenced by aberrant DNA methylation in lung cancer. Many of these genes are interesting targets for reactivation by the inhibitor of DNA methylation, decitabine (5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine, DAC). A pilot study on intense dose DAC showed promising results in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, subsequent clinical studies using low dose DAC were not very effective against NSCLC and interest in this therapy diminished. Recently, interesting responses were observed in a patient with NSCLC following treatment with a combination of the related inhibitor of DNA methylation, 5-azacytidine, and an inhibitor of histone deacetylation. This finding has generated a renewed interest in the epigenetic therapy of lung cancer. Preclinical studies indicate that DAC has remarkable chemotherapeutic potential for tumor therapy. This epigenetic agent has a delayed and prolonged epigenetic action on tumor cells. This delayed action should be taken into consideration in the design and evaluation of clinical studies on DAC. Future research should be directed at finding the optimal dose-schedule of de DAC for the treatment of NSCLC.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207