MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808677508 · doi:10.3390/brainsci8060110

Chaperonology: The Third Eye on Brain Gliomas

2018· article· en· W2808677508 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francesca Graziano, Celeste Caruso Bavisotto, Francesca Rappa, Everly Conway de Macario, Alberto J.L. Macario, Francesco Cappello, Claudia Campanella, Rosario Maugeri, Domenico Gerardo Iacopino

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNatural historyRadiation therapyRegimenGliomaQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseTemozolomideOncologyIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsInternal medicineCancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Cancer Institute of Canada Phase III trial has validated as a current regimen for high-grade gliomas (HGG) a maximal safe surgical resection followed by radiotherapy with concurrent temozolamide. However, it is essential to balance maximal tumor resection with preservation of the patient’s neurological functions. Important developments in the fields of pre-operative and intra-operative neuro-imaging and neuro-monitoring have ameliorated the survival rate and the quality of life for patients affected by HGG. Moreover, even though the natural history remains extremely poor, advancement in the molecular and genetic fields have opened up new potential frontiers in the management of this devastating brain disease. In this review, we aim to present a comprehensive account of the main current pre-operative, intra-operative and molecular approaches to HGG with particular attention to specific chaperones, also called heat shock proteins (Hsps), which represent potential novel biomarkers to detect and follow up HGG, and could also be therapeutic agents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207