MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330962151 · doi:10.1093/ilar/ilv048

Murine Tumor Models for Oncolytic Rhabdo-Virotherapy

2016· article· en· W2330962151 on OpenAlexafffund
Theresa Falls, Dominic G. Roy, John C. Bell, Marie‐Claude Bourgeois‐Daigneault

Bibliographic record

VenueILAR Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Institute
KeywordsOncolytic virusVirotherapyVesicular stomatitis virusContext (archaeology)Tumor microenvironmentCancer researchImmune systemEx vivoCancerCancer therapyOncolytic adenovirusMedicineIn vivoVirusTumor cellsImmunologyBiologyInternal medicineBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The preclinical optimization and validation of novel treatments for cancer therapy requires the use of laboratory animals. Although in vitro experiments using tumor cell lines and ex vivo treatment of patient tumor samples provide a remarkable first-line tool for the initial study of tumoricidal potential, tumor-bearing animals remain the primary option to study delivery, efficacy, and safety of therapies in the context of a complete tumor microenvironment and functional immune system. In this review, we will describe the use of murine tumor models for oncolytic virotherapy using vesicular stomatitis virus. We will discuss studies using immunocompetent and immunodeficient models with respect to toxicity and therapeutic treatments, as well as the various techniques and tools available to study cancer therapy with Rhabdoviruses.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueILAR JournalSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207