MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892263168 · doi:10.1080/2162402x.2018.1512943

Identification of PD-L2, B7-H3 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoint proteins in genetic subtypes of meningioma

2018· article· en· W2892263168 on OpenAlexafffund
Dustin Proctor, Zeel Patel, Sanju Lama, Lothar Resch, Guido van Marle, Garnette R. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueOncoImmunology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
FundersGovernment of CanadaHealth Research Board
KeywordsImmunotherapyImmune checkpointCancer researchMeningiomaMedicineImmune systemCTLA-4MutationPD-L1GeneImmunologyBiologyT cellPathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meningioma is the most common brain tumor in adults. Surgical resection remains the primary treatment. No chemotherapy exists. However, gene mutations now could explain ~ 80% of meningioma and targeted therapies based on these are being investigated. Furthermore, with the recent discovery of PD-L1 in malignant meningioma, clinical trials using immunotherapy have commenced. Here, we report for the first time the expression profiles of immune checkpoint proteins PD-L2, B7-H3 and CTLA-4 in meningioma and their association to common gene mutations. PD-L2 and B7-H3 expression was significantly greater than all immune checkpoint proteins studied, and particularly elevated in patients with gene mutations affecting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. CTLA-4 expressing CD3+ lymphocytes were observed in atypical and malignant meningioma and tumors harboring a PIK3CA or SMO mutation. These results identify novel targets for immunotherapy irrespective of grade and distinguish potential patient populations based on genetic classification for stratification into checkpoint inhibitor clinical trials.

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 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 score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncoImmunologySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207