MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132365023 · doi:10.1007/s13167-011-0138-2

Personalization of prostate cancer prevention and therapy: are clinically qualified biomarkers in the horizon?

2012· article· en· W2132365023 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy A. Yap, Charles Swanton, Johann S. de Bono

Bibliographic record

VenueThe EPMA Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineCabazitaxelTaxaneOncologyAndrogen deprivation therapyCancerMalignancyAndrogen receptorEnzalutamideInternal medicineDiseaseAbiraterone acetateBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer remains the most common malignancy among men and the second leading cause of male cancer-related mortality. Death from this disease is invariably due to resistance to androgen deprivation therapy. Our improved understanding of the biology of prostate cancer has heralded a new era in molecular anticancer drug development, with multiple novel anticancer drugs for castration resistant prostate cancer now entering the clinic. These include the taxane cabazitaxel, the vaccine sipuleucel-T, the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone, the novel androgen receptor antagonist MDV-3100 and the radionuclide alpharadin. The management and therapeutic landscape of prostate cancer has now been transformed with this growing armamentarium of effective antitumor agents. This review discusses strategies for the prevention and personalization of prostate cancer therapy, with a focus on the development of predictive and intermediate endpoint biomarkers, as well as novel clinical trial designs that will be crucial for the optimal development of such anticancer therapeutics.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe EPMA JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207