MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147154643 · doi:10.1517/14712598.7.11.1723

L-BLP25: a MUC1-targeted peptide vaccine therapy in prostate cancer

2007· review· en· W2147154643 on OpenAlexaff
Randeep Sangha, Scott North

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineMUC1Cancer vaccineAntigenCancerPeptide vaccineOncologyProstate-specific antigenImmunotherapyCancer researchImmunologyInternal medicineEpitope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renewed interest in cancer vaccine strategies has occurred with the identification of tumour-associated antigens and a further understanding of the immunoregulatory pathways involved in cancer development and progression. MUC1 is a mucinous glycoprotein that is overexpressed and aberrantly glycosylated in many human malignancies, including prostate cancer. BLP25 is a synthetic, liposomal cancer vaccine that targets the extracellular tandem repeat sequences of the MUC1 tumour-associated antigen. Preclinical L-BLP25 studies have shown the induction of a cell-mediated response and subsequent Phase I and II studies have established the vaccine dose, schedule and excellent safety profile. A Phase II study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer demonstrated a strong survival trend in favour of L-BLP25 in a subgroup of patients with locoregional stage IIIB disease. L-BLP25 also shows promise in prostate cancer. A pilot Phase II study in hormone naive patients with prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy demonstrated a prolongation of prostate-specific antigen doubling time with little morbidity. These encouraging results suggest the potential of L-BLP25 in the management of cancer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.275 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207