Mechanisms of immunogenicity in colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The immune response in cancer is increasingly understood to be important in determining clinical outcomes, including responses to cancer therapies. New insights into the mechanisms underpinning the immune microenvironment in colorectal cancer are helping to develop the role of immunotherapy and suggest targeted approaches to the management of colorectal cancer at all disease stages. METHOD: A literature search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant articles. This narrative review discusses the current understanding of the contributors to immunogenicity in colorectal cancer and potential applications for targeted therapies. RESULTS: Responsiveness to immunotherapy in colorectal cancer is non-uniform. Several factors, both germline and tumour-related, are potential determinants of immunogenicity in colorectal cancer. Current approaches target tumours with high immunogenicity driven by mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes. Recent work suggests a role for therapies that boost the immune response in tumours with low immunogenicity. CONCLUSION: With the development of promising therapies to boost the innate immune response, there is significant potential for the expansion of the role of immunotherapy as an adjuvant to surgical treatment in colorectal cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".