MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164566492 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can_10-3398

Small Molecule Inhibitors Targeting the “Achilles' Heel” of Androgen Receptor Activity

2011· review· en· W2164566492 on OpenAlexafffund
Marianne D. Sadar

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersDOD Prostate Cancer Research ProgramNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research and Materiel CommandCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAndrogen receptorProstate cancerMedicineTransactivationCancerAndrogenAndrogen Receptor AntagonistsCancer researchAndrogen deprivation therapyPharmacologyInternal medicineHormoneChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Androgen ablation therapy remains the gold standard for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, but unfortunately, it is not curative, and eventually the disease will return as lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Mounting evidence supports the concept that development of CRPC is causally related to continued transactivation of androgen receptor (AR). All current therapies that target the AR are dependent on the presence of its C-terminal ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, it is the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the AR that is the "Achilles' heel" of AR activity, with AF-1 being essential for AR activity regardless of androgen. Recent efforts to develop drugs to the AR NTD have yielded EPI-001, a small molecule, sintokamide peptides, and decoys to the AR NTD with EPI-001, the best characterized and most promising for clinical development based upon specificity, low toxicity, and cytoreductive antitumor activity.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations150
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207