MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922406744 · doi:10.1002/stem.3004

Concise Review: Targeting Cancer Stem Cells and Their Supporting Niche Using Oncolytic Viruses

2019· review· en· W2922406744 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu J. F. Crupi, John C. Bell, Ragunath Singaravelu

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox FoundationOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsBiologyOncolytic virusCancer stem cellCancer researchChimeric antigen receptorImmune systemTumor microenvironmentCancer cellAntigenCancerMetastasisStem cellImmunotherapyImmunologyCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have the capacity to self-renew and differentiate to give rise to heterogenous cancer cell lineages in solid tumors. These CSC populations are associated with metastasis, tumor relapse, and resistance to conventional anticancer therapies. Here, we focus on the use of oncolytic viruses (OVs) to target CSCs as well as the OV-driven interferon production in the tumor microenvironment (TME) that can repress CSC properties. We explore the ability of OVs to deliver combinations of immune-modulating therapeutic transgenes, such as immune checkpoint inhibitor antibodies. In particular, we highlight the advantages of virally encoded bi-specific T cell engagers (BiTEs) to not only target cell-surface markers on CSCs, but also tumor-associated antigens on contributing components of the surrounding TME and other cancer cells. We also highlight the crucial role of combination anticancer treatments, evidenced by synergy of OV-delivered BiTEs and chimeric-antigen receptor T cell therapy. Stem Cells 2019;37:716-723.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem CellsSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207