Cancer immunotherapy via combining oncolytic virotherapy with chemotherapy: recent advances
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.976
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Oncolytic viruses are multifunctional anticancer agents with huge clinical potential, and have recently passed the randomized Phase III clinical trial hurdle. Both wild-type and engineered viruses have been selected for targeting of specific cancers, to elicit cytotoxicity, and also to generate antitumor immunity. Single-agent oncolytic virotherapy treatments have resulted in modest effects in the clinic. There is increasing interest in their combination with cytotoxic agents, radiotherapy and immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Similarly to oncolytic viruses, the benefits of chemotherapeutic agents may be that they induce systemic antitumor immunity through the induction of immunogenic cell death of cancer cells. Combining these two treatment modalities has to date resulted in significant potential in vitro and in vivo synergies through various mechanisms without any apparent additional toxicities. Chemotherapy has been and will continue to be integral to the management of advanced cancers. This review therefore focuses on the potential for a number of common cytotoxic agents to be combined with clinically relevant oncolytic viruses. In many cases, this combined approach has already advanced to the clinical trial arena.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Oncolytic Virotherapy
- Topic
- Virus-based gene therapy research
- Field
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
- Canadian institutions
- Institute of Cancer Research
- Funders
- Rosetrees TrustNational Institute for Health and Care Research
- Keywords
- Oncolytic virusVirotherapyImmunotherapyImmunogenic cell deathMedicineCancerCytotoxic T cellCancer researchImmune systemClinical trialChemotherapyImmunologyBiologyInternal medicineIn vitro
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes