MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518062514 · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.08.010

Carcinogenicity risk assessment of romosozumab: A review of scientific weight-of-evidence and findings in a rat lifetime pharmacology study

2016· review· en· W2518062514 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Chouinard, Melanie Felx, Nacera Mellal, A. Varela, Peter Mann, Jacquelin Jolette, Rana Samadfam, Susan Y. Smith, Kathrin Locher, Sabina Buntich, Michael S. Ominsky, Ian Pyrah, Rogely Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicWnt/β-catenin signaling in development and cancer
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSclerostinWnt signaling pathwayLRP5LRP6EquolFrizzledMedicineBone resorptionCancer researchInternal medicineEndocrinologyChemistryPharmacologySignal transductionBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

monoclonal antibody that binds and blocks the action of sclerostin, a protein secreted by the osteocyte and an extracellular inhibitor of canonical Wnt signaling. Blockade of sclerostin binding to low-density lipoprotein receptor-related proteins 5 and 6 (LRP5 and LRP6) allows Wnt ligands to activate canonical Wnt signaling in bone, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, making sclerostin an attractive target for osteoporosis therapy. Because romosozumab is a bone-forming agent and an activator of canonical Wnt signaling, questions have arisen regarding a potential carcinogenic risk. Weight-of-evidence factors used in the assessment of human carcinogenic risk of romosozumab included features of canonical Wnt signaling, expression pattern of sclerostin, phenotype of loss-of-function mutations in humans and mice, mode and mechanism of action of romosozumab, and findings from romosozumab chronic toxicity studies in rats and monkeys. Although the weight-of-evidence factors supported that romosozumab would pose a low carcinogenic risk to humans, the carcinogenic potential of romosozumab was assessed in a rat lifetime study. There were no romosozumab-related effects on tumor incidence in rats. The findings of the lifetime study and the weight-of-evidence factors collectively indicate that romosozumab administration would not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations87
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegulatory Toxicology and PharmacologySame topicWnt/β-catenin signaling in development and cancerFrench-language works237,207