MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404323485

INGN-201. Introgen Therapeutics.

2001· article· en· W2404323485 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Brukner

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Genomics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic enhancementBusinessCancer researchPolitical scienceManagementMedicineLibrary scienceGeneBiologyGeneticsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In April 2001, Aventis and Introgen signed a letter of intent to restructure their collaboration arrangement, giving Introgen responsibility for the worldwide development of all p53 programs under the existing collaboration and obtain exclusive worldwide commercial rights to p53-based gene therapy products, including INGN-201. In February 2001, Introgen was awarded US-06194191 for the commercial production of adenovirus vectors. In November 2000, the company and the University of Texas System were issued with US-06143290, entitled 'Recombinant p53 adenovirus methods and compositions', further solidifying the company's current p53 patent portfolio. In June 2000, the University of Texas System was awarded US-06069134, entitled, 'Methods and compositions comprising DNA damaging agents and p53.' This is the second US patent to be issued that is equivalent to WO-09528948. In May 1998, US-05747469, entitled 'Methods and compositions comprising DNA damaging agents and p53', was awarded to the Board of Regents of the University of Texas. This patent covers the use of the p53 gene in combination with chemotherapeutic agents, radiation therapies or other agents, which damage the DNA of cancer cells. It is one of several intellectual properties licensed to Introgen through an agreement with the MD Anderson Cancer Center.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCancer Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207