MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982119965 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.01216

Editorial: Targeted Therapies for Glioblastoma: A Critical Appraisal

2019· editorial· en· W2982119965 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shiv K. Gupta, Sani H. Kizilbash, David J. Daniels, Jann N. Sarkaria

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsGlioblastomaMedicineCritical appraisalOncologyMedical physicsCancer researchAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Targeted Therapies for Glioblastoma: A Critical AppraisalHigh grade gliomas including glioblastoma (GBM) in adults and diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) in children are fatal brain tumors with <5% of patients surviving 5 years after initial diagnosis and treatment.Targeted agents hold promise as monotherapy or as sensitizing strategies to improve response to traditional chemo-radiation.However, despite intense research endeavors and numerous clinical trials, no targeted agents have been FDA approved in the past decade.Clonal heterogeneity, acquired or inherent resistance to available therapies, restricted drug delivery, resistant stem-like cells, and immune-evasive properties in these tumors have been subject to intense study.Advances in technology including next-generation sequencing-has allowed comprehensive mapping of genetic alterations such as single nucleotide polymorphism, fusions, and copy number variations, and alterations to the epigenetic landscape including DNA methylation and histone post-translational modifications (PTMs).This approach has led to identification of several therapeutic targets and potential biomarkers, resulting in a number of new investigational treatment modalities.These include inhibitors of signaling, cell cycle and DNA damage repair pathways, and angiogenesis, in addition to ongoing evaluations of novel gene-, viro-, and immuno-therapies.However, as highlighted in the series of articles (referenced) and compiled in this eBook, despite significant progress in understanding pathology and molecular underpinnings, clinical development of novel therapeutics has faced challenges that hinder overall progress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0140.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.019

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207