MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158491808 · doi:10.5539/cco.v4n2p41

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Recurrent Classic Glioblastoma in a Patient Surviving Eleven Years Following Antineoplaston Therapy

2015· article· en· W2158491808 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stanisław R. Burzyński, Tomasz J. Janicki, Gregory S. Burzynski

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer and Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFoundation Medicine
KeywordsPTENCDKN2AMedicineOncologyCancer researchInternal medicineBioinformaticsCancerPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayBiologyGeneticsSignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most patients with recurrent glioblastoma (RGBM) die within 6 months regardless of treatment. In phase II studies of Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 injections (ANP), our investigators have reported objective responses and long-term survival in RGBM. Using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) based assay of 343 cancer-related genes and introns, comprehensive genomic profiling of tumor tissue obtained from a RGBM patient (who remains alive and well) was performed 11 years after diagnosis and permitted assignment of the patient’s RGBM to the classical subgroup. The most important genomic alterations included amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A and 2B (CDKN2A/B), loss of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) and telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) mutation. An analysis of the signaling networks and other targets of ANP therapy was recently performed and presented in this publication. Based on our findings, patients with classical RGBM have a reasonable possibility of responding to ANP therapy and experiencing long-term survival. It is proposed that this subgroup of RGBM patients be enrolled in a genomics-driven clinical trial of ANP 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer and Clinical OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207