MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985913611 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz175.1151

SCIDOT-15. DISRUPTING THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER IN NEURO-ONCOLOGY: INNOVATIONS, ACHIEVEMENTS, AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM CLINICAL TRIALS

2019· article· en· W2985913611 on OpenAlexaff
Justine Philtheos, Aram Abbasian, Brij Karmur, Alireza Mansouri

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityBlood–brain barrierClinical trialOncologyInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND The blood-brain barrier (BBB) presents a formidable challenge for the development of effective therapeutics in neuro-oncology. Several strategies for the disruption of the BBB have been investigated in humans. An in-depth analysis of the concepts, design, and outcomes from these trials can provide insight into optimizing strategies for safe, selective, and efficacious BBB disruption for drug delivery. METHODS The clinicaltrials.gov database was searched on June 9th, 2019 using the term blood-brain barrier. Results were screened for studies relevant to neuro-oncology. When available, linked publications were also reviewed for supplemental information. The Pubmed database was also searched for BBB disruption strategies, to identify publications not linked to a trial registry. Details regarding patient eligibility, intervention, comparators, outcomes and other design criteria were extracted. RESULTS Among 288 registered studies, 42 were relevant to neuro-oncology. Drug-based methods predominated (33/42) but there has been a surge in device-based methods with all registrations after 2015. Mannitol was the most common drug-based method (16/33, 5 Phase II), followed by RMP-7 (8/33, 3 Phase II), Ang1005 (7/33, 4 Phase II and one pending Phase III), and Regadenoson (2/33, one Phase 0 and one Phase I). MR-guided focused ultrasound was the most common device-based method (5/9), followed by MR-guide laser ablation (2/9), Sonocloud (1/9), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (1/9). All device studies have been early phase. Most early phase studies focusing on safety and tolerability met objectives. Some Phase II studies showed preliminary efficacy but control arms were lacking. Many Phase II studies have been terminated/suspended. CONCLUSIONS Diverse BBB disruption methods have been investigated and most appear to be safe and tolerable. Advanced phase studies focusing on survival differences have been limited by heterogeneous tumors and lack of control arms. Objective establishment of BBB disruption was limited. Concerted and standardized clinical trial efforts are needed.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207