MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603821422 · doi:10.1007/s40268-017-0180-1

Revisiting CDK Inhibitors for Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme

2017· review· en· W2603821422 on OpenAlexafffund
Dorota Lubanska, Lisa A. Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs in R&D · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research Institute
KeywordsCyclin-dependent kinaseGliomaGlioblastomaRepurposingDiseaseMedicinePopulationBiologyBioinformaticsCancer researchCancerCell cycleInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite extensive efforts and continual progress in research and medicine, outcomes for patients with high-grade glioma remain exceptionally poor. Over the past decade, research has revealed a great deal about the complex biology behind glioma development, and has brought to light some of the major barriers preventing successful treatment. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) (stage 4 astrocytoma) is a highly dynamic tumour and one of the most extreme examples of intratumoural heterogeneity, making targeting with specific therapeutics an inefficient and highly unpredictable goal. The cancer stem cell hypothesis offers a new view on the possible mechanisms dictating the heterogeneous nature of this disease and contributes to our understanding of glioma resistance and recurrence. Revealing cell division characteristics of initiating cell populations within GBM may represent novel treatment targets and/or the effective repurposing of existing therapies. In this review, we discuss the potential role of targeting the cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) driving this specific population. We also describe developments using multi-omic approaches that may aid in stratifying patient populations for CDK inhibitor therapy.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs in R&DSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207