Novel anti-angiogenic agents for colorectal cancer. Are we moving on?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumours depend greatly on blood supply to grow, spread and metastasise. It has been proposed, for a long time now, that angiogenesis and neo-vasculature development are present in tumours.(1;2) Angiogenesis is subject to regulation by a number of pro-angiogenic growth factors such as the vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), angiopoetin, platelet derived growth factor (PDGF), placental growth factor (PlGF) and others, which are counteracted by proangiogenic growth factors such as angiostatin, transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) and others.(1;3) Among those growth factors, the most studied and associated with tumour growth and neo-angiogenesis is the family of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which includes VEGF-A (the archetypal member, often called as VEGF), placental growth factor (PlGF), VEGF-B, VEGF-C, and VEGF-D (known also as c-Fos-induced growth factor, FIGF), and the viral VEGF-E. These growth factors exert their biological function through the VEGF transmembrane receptors VEGFR-1, -2 and -3. In particular, VEGF binds to VEGFR-1 and -2, VEGF-B and PlGF only to VEGFR-1, VEGF-C and VEGF-D to VEGFR-2 and -3.(4-8)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".