MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139869590 · doi:10.1089/107555304323062329

Germane Facts About Germanium Sesquioxide: I. Chemistry and Anticancer Properties

2004· review· en· W2139869590 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie J. Kaplan, W. W. PARISH, G. Merrill Andrus, Jennifer S. Simpson, Catherine J. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicThallium and Germanium Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSesquioxideClearanceGermanium compoundsPhysiologyMedicineClinical trialToxicityGermaniumPharmacologyEnvironmental chemistryToxicologyChemistryInternal medicineBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the history, chemistry, safety, toxicity, and anticancer effects of the organogermanium compound bis (2-carboxyethylgermanium) sesquioxide (CEGS). A companion review follows, discussing the inaccuracies in the scientific record that have prematurely terminated research on clinical uses of CEGS. CEGS is a unique organogermanium compound first made by Mironov and coworkers in Russia and, shortly thereafter, popularized by Asai and his colleagues in Japan. Low concentrations of germanium occur in nearly all soils, plants and animal life; natural occurrence of the CEGS form is postulated but not yet demonstrated. The literature demonstrating its anticancer effect is particularly strong: CEGS induces interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma), enhances natural killer cell activity, and inhibits tumor and metastatic growth--effects often detectable after a single oral dose. In addition, oral consumption of CEGS is readily assimilated and rapidly cleared from the body without evidence of toxicity. Given these findings, the absence of human clinical trials of CEGS is unexpected. Possible explanations of why the convincing findings from animal research have not been used to support clinical trials are discussed. Clinical trials on CEGS are recommended.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineSame topicThallium and Germanium StudiesFrench-language works237,207