Cellular therapy approaches harnessing the power of the immune system for personalized cancer treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer development often implies failure of the immune system to recognize tumor antigens and kill malignant cells. While the whole immune cell repertoire is broad, that of immune cells with the ability to react to individual tumor antigens is usually very limited. The purpose of cancer immunotherapy is to augment the power, quantitative and qualitative, of the immune system such that it readily recognizes and eliminates cancer cells. As immune therapy is shifting toward more personalized medicine, different types of tumor antigens can be used as target antigens to allow T cells to destroy tumor cells. These antigens are mostly defined as tumor associated antigens (TAA), neoantigens or minor histocompatibility antigens. Their clinical usage involve either direct injection of TAA and neoantigens, administration of peptide-loaded dendritic cells in vaccination approaches, or infusion of ex vivo expanded tumor-specific T cells. However, such cellular therapies are facing several challenges including immune suppressive tumor microenvironment, lack of persistence of ex vivo expanded antigen specific T cells and potential off-target toxicity of these therapies. In this review, we will discuss recent advances allowing for better expansion of tumor reactive T cells and novel strategies used to overcome the challenges facing cellular therapy for 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".