Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The intestinal microbiome heavily influences development and regulation of the immune system. The microbiome, which includes bacteria, viruses, and fungi, can also influence the initiation, development, and progression of cancer, with modulation of the immune system as one of the key pathways involved. Gut bacteria have also been found to alter the efficacy of cancer therapies, including immune checkpoint blockade therapy. These immunotherapies utilize the therapeutic potential of the immune system and have revolutionized cancer treatment. Yet this promising new strategy is not effective in all individuals (or all cancers) and has shown poor efficacy in colorectal cancer. We therefore investigated whether the intestinal microbiota could play a role in modulating immunotherapy in mouse models of colorectal cancers. We have identified specific intestinal commensal bacteria and a bacterial metabolite that control the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in animal models of colorectal cancer. In this session I will discuss the cellular and molecular pathways involved in this novel microbiota-microbe-immune pathway and describe the potential of bacteria-checkpoint blockade cotherapies. Citation Format: Kathy D. McCoy. Microbiota, metabolites, and antitumor immunity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on the Microbiome, Viruses, and Cancer; 2020 Feb 21-24; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(8 Suppl):Abstract nr IA05.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".