MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408550845 · doi:10.7150/jca.13470

Calcitriol in Combination Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interactions

2016· review· en· W2408550845 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Ben‐Eltriki, Subrata Deb, Emma S. Tomlinson Guns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Education, Libya
KeywordsCalcitriolMedicineProstate cancerClinical trialVitamin D and neurologyPharmacodynamicsPharmacologyCancerPharmacokineticsOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidemiological studies indicate that vitamin D insufficiency could have an etiological role in prostate cancer. In addition, calcitriol, used in combination with currently available drugs, has the potential to potentiate their anticancer effects or act synergistically by inhibiting distinct mechanisms involved in prostate cancer growth. Clinical data have not yet provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate benefit of vitamin D due to the limited and underpowered studies that have been published to date. Here, we review the preclinical and clinical studies that describe the activity of calcitriol, applied either alone or in combination and assessed the mechanistic basis of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions with calcitriol. Important considerations for calcitriol use in combination therapy with respect to safety and clinical outcomes have been discussed. Many of these combinations have therapeutic potential for the treatment of several cancer types and it is anticipated that future clinical research will put emphasis on well‑designed clinical trials to establish efficacy.

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)0.001
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.437 · 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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of CancerSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207