MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143982849 · doi:10.1002/ddrr.29

Pharmacogenetics of the neurodevelopmental impact of anticancer chemotherapy

2008· review· en· W2143982849 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Robaey, Maja Krajinović, Sophie Marcoux, Albert Moghrabi

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Disabilities Research Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacogeneticsAdverse effectMedicineNeurotoxicityPsychosocialBioinformaticsPharmacologyPsychiatryBiologyGeneGeneticsInternal medicineToxicityGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pharmacogenetics holds the promise of minimizing adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes of cancer patients by identifying patients at risk, enabling the individualization of treatment and the planning of close follow-up and early remediation. This review focuses first on methotrexate, a drug often implicated in neurotoxicity, especially when used in combination with brain irradiation. The second focus is on glucocorticoids that have been found to be linked to adverse developmental effects in relation with the psychosocial environment. For both examples, we review how polymorphisms of genes encoding enzymes involved in specific mechanisms of action could moderate adverse neurodevelopmental consequences, eventually through common final pathways such as oxidative stress. We discuss a multiple hit model and possible strategies required to rise to the challenge of this integrative research.

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Disabilities Research ReviewsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207