MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2768087876 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox168.1045

TMOD-06. CLONAL DYNAMICS OF HUMAN GLIOBLASTOMA IN RESPONSE TO CHEMORADIOTHERAPY

2017· article· en· W2768087876 on OpenAlexaff
Maleeha Qazi, Allison M.L. Nixon, David Bakhshinyan, Chitra Venugopal, Parvez Vora, Kevin R. Brown, Minomi Subapanditha, Nicolas Yelle, Chirayu Chokshi, Mathieu Seyfrid, Jason Moffat, Sheila K. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemoradiotherapyIn vivoBiologyGlioblastomaCell therapyU87Cancer researchMedicineBioinformaticsStem cellOncologyChemotherapyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite aggressive multimodal therapy, human glioblastoma (hGBM), a highly malignant grade IV astrocytic tumour, remains incurable and inevitably relapses. Recent data has implicated intratumoral heterogeneity as the driver of therapy resistance and tumour relapse in hGBM. Thus models that capture the evolution of hGBM biology in response to chemoradiotherapy will allow for the identification of cellular mechanisms that govern GBM therapy failure. In this study, we coupled cellular DNA barcoding technology with our novel in vitro and in vivo chemoradiotherapy model to profile the clonal evolution of hGBM brain tumour initiating cells (BTIC) through therapy. We report the successful barcoding of primary treatment-naive hGBM BTICs at single cell resolution that were then expanded into clonal populations with 40-60x representation per barcode. We then subjected our barcoded cells to in vitro chemoradiotherapy as well as intracranially engrafted barcoded cells into immune-deficient mice for subsequent delivery of in vivo therapy to identify differential barcode selection in two therapy models. Through this, we determined if the same cellular subpopulation is therapy-resistant in vitro and in vivo and whether a pre-existing or a therapy-driven subpopulation(s) seeds hGBM tumour relapse. Profiling the dynamic nature of heterogeneous hGBM subpopulations through disease progression and treatment may lead to identification of the mode(s) of therapy resistance utilized by hGBM which may drive relapse.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.345
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

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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→