MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735904407 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2017.220

HYPE or HOPE: the prognostic value of infiltrating immune cells in cancer

2017· review· en· W2735904407 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmune systemTumor microenvironmentImmune checkpointCD8CancerImmunologyImmunotherapyCancer researchCancer cellMedicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactions between immune and malignant cells have been known to have clinical relevance for decades. The potential for immune control is now being therapeutically enhanced with checkpoint inhibitors and other novel agents to improve outcomes in cancer. The importance of the immune infiltrate as a prognostic marker is increasingly relevant. In this minireview, we present an overview of the immune infiltrate and its spatial organisation, and summarise the prognostic value of immune cells in different cancer types. International collaborative efforts are standardising histopathologic reporting of the immune infiltrate, to allow application of these parameters in the clinical and research settings. In general terms, a 'pro-inflammatory' tumour microenvironment and infiltrating CD8-expressing T lymphocytes are associated with improved clinical outcomes in a broad range of tumour types. The inhibitory function of other immune cells, for example, myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T cells, appear to have a major role in disrupting the capacity for the immune control of cancers.

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.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.323 · 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