MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146261034 · doi:10.1177/1534735408328573

Nutrition and the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer: Association of Cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 With the Role of Fruit and Fruit Extracts

2008· review· en· W2146261034 on OpenAlexaff
William R. Ware

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative Cancer Therapies · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerCancer preventionCYP1B1Health benefitsEnzymeCancer treatmentCancer cellMedicineCytochrome P450BiotechnologyBiologyPharmacologyBiochemistryTraditional medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommendations for a healthy or prudent diet include a large number of daily servings of fruits and vegetables, and these 2 classes of food are widely believed to assist in cancer prevention. One potential mechanism that is rarely mentioned in nutritional studies involves the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1, which appears to have the unique properties of being a universal cancer marker overexpressed in cancer cells and having the capability of converting various phytochemicals and synthetic chemicals into substances cytotoxic to these cells. Although these particular features of CYP1B1 have not gone unnoticed, there has been relatively little research aimed at exploiting them. Furthermore, therapeutic and preventive strategies currently being considered based on vaccines against the enzyme or inhibition without the generation of cytotoxins can be questioned because they do not take advantage of the unique properties of this enzyme. In addition, a few relevant case histories have been published that use specially designed fruit extracts containing substrates with demonstrated cytotoxic metabolic products, and these reports provide an initial confirmation of the potential of exploiting the unusual properties of this enzyme for cancer therapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative Cancer TherapiesSame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207