MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396404964 · doi:10.1186/s13048-016-0236-9

Adoptive immunotherapy against ovarian cancer

2016· review· en· W2396404964 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gloria Mittica, Sonia Capellero, Sofia Genta, Celeste Cagnazzo, Massimo Aglietta, Dario Sangiolo, Giorgio Valabrega

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ovarian Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità degli Studi di TorinoAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroMinistero della SaluteUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineImmunotherapyDebulkingOvarian cancerTumor-infiltrating lymphocytesOncologyAdoptive cell transferImmunologyCell therapyMinimal residual diseaseDiseaseCancerInternal medicineImmune systemT cellCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard front-line therapy for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is combination of debulking surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the majority of patients experience disease recurrence. Although extensive efforts to find new therapeutic options, cancer cells invariably develop drug resistance and disease progression. New therapeutic strategies are needed to improve prognosis of patients with advanced EOC.Recently, several preclinical and clinical studies investigated feasibility and activity of adoptive immunotherapy in EOC. Our aim is to highlight prospective of adoptive immunotherapy in EOC, focusing on HLA-restricted Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs), and MHC-independent immune effectors such as natural killer (NK), and cytokine-induced killer (CIK). Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has shown activity in several pre-clinical models. Available preclinical and clinical data suggest that adoptive cell therapy may provide the best benefit in settings of low tumor burden, minimal residual disease, or maintenance therapy. Further studies are needed to better define the optimal clinical setting.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ovarian ResearchSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207