MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528626295 · doi:10.1186/s40425-016-0168-3

Perspectives in immunotherapy: meeting report from the “Immunotherapy Bridge”, Napoli, December 5th 2015

2016· article· en· W2528626295 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo A. Ascierto, Maria Libera Ascierto, Silvia C. Formenti, Sacha Gnjatic, Hans J. Hammers, Vera Hirsh, Rolf Kiessling, Ignacio Melero, Rita Nanda, Graham Pawelec, Sandro Pignata, Pedro Romero, Daniel E. Speiser, Bernard A. Fox, Francesco M. Marincola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
FundersSociety for Immunotherapy of Cancer
KeywordsImmunotherapyMedicineCancer immunotherapyMelanomaImmune systemIpilimumabCancerRenal cell carcinomaBreast cancerOncologyImmunologyCancer researchInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harnessing the immune system and preventing immune escape, the immunotherapy of cancer provides great potential for clinical application, in broad patient populations, achieving both conventional and unconventional clinical responses. After the substantial advances in melanoma, the focus of cancer immunotherapy has expanded to include many other cancers. Targeting immune checkpoints and further mechanisms used by tumors to avoid anticancer immunity, different approaches are under evaluation, including combination therapies. The first Immunotherapy Bridge meeting focused on various cancer types including melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell, breast and ovarian carcinoma, and discussed mechanisms of action of single agents and combination strategies, and the prediction of clinical responses.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.011

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for ImmunoTherapy of CancerSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207