MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128973831 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-0213

L-BLP25: A Peptide Vaccine Strategy in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

2007· review· en· W2128973831 on OpenAlexaff
Randeep Sangha, Charles Butts

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMUC1Peptide vaccineOncologyLung cancerInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchClinical trialImmunotherapyImmunologyCancerImmune systemAntigenEpitope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MUC1 is a mucinous glycoprotein which is overexpressed and under or aberrantly glycosylated in many human malignancies. MUC1 is associated with cellular transformation and can confer resistance to genotoxic agents. L-BLP25 is a peptide vaccine strategy that targets the exposed core peptide of MUC1. In preclinical studies, L-BLP25 induced a cellular immune response characterized by T-cell proliferation in response to MUC1 and production of IFN-gamma. Phase I and II trials have established the dose and schedule of the vaccine as well as its excellent safety profile. A randomized phase II trial of maintenance L-BLP25 versus best supportive care in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer who experienced clinical benefit from initial therapy has been reported. Updated survival analysis of this trial continues to show a strong survival trend in favor of L-BLP25 (median survival, 30.6 versus 13.3 months) in a subgroup of patients with locoregional stage IIIB disease. These promising results will be tested in a phase III trial of L-BLP25 versus placebo in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer after response to primary chemoradiotherapy.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.284 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations173
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207