MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135293060 · doi:10.1517/14712590903110709

Nimotuzumab: a novel anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody that retains anti-EGFR activity while minimizing skin toxicity

2009· review· en· W2135293060 on OpenAlexaff
William K Boland, Gwyn Bebb

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNimotuzumabMedicineMonoclonal antibodyClinical trialPharmacologyEpidermal growth factor receptorDrugToxicityEGFR inhibitorsOncologyCancer researchCancerAntibodyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the broad importance of EGFR to tumorogenesis, targeted therapy against it has rapidly developed into a novel paradigm for cancer treatment. Two promising classes of drugs are now in use and undergoing development that target this receptor: tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and mAbs that inhibit EGFR's extracellular domain. Nimotuzumab, a humanized murine mAb created in Cuba, has demonstrated antitumor activity similar to that of other anti-EGFR mAbs and shows promise as a single agent and as an adjunct to radiation in Phase I and II clinical trials. Surprisingly, the typical severe dermatological toxicities thus far associated with anti-EGFR therapy have not been described with nimotuzumab. Here we summarize the background, development and characteristics of this new drug while reviewing the latest preclinical and clinical trial data that underpin its gradual adoption into clinical practice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations100
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207