Cancer Stem Cells and their Management in Cancer Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last decade, the proposed Cancer Stem Cell (CSC) hypothesis has steadily changed the way cancer treatment is approached. CSCs may be the source of the heterogeneous non-tumorigenic cell population included in a neoplasm. Intratumor and intertumoral heterogeneity is a well-known phenomenon that massively entangles the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The literature seems to suggest that heterogeneity develops progressively within tumor-initiating stem cells. CSCs harbor genetic and/or epigenetic alterations that allow them to differentiate into multiple tumor cell types sequentially. OBJECTIVE: The CSC hypothesis, cellular therapy, and the most recent patents on CSCs were reviewed. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were screened for this information. Also, an analysis of the most recent data targeting CSCs in pediatric cancer developed at two Canadian institutions is provided. The genes involved with the activation of CSCs and the drugs used to antagonize them are also highlighted. RESULTS: It is underlined that (1) CSCs possess stem cell-like properties, including the ability for self-renewal; (2) CSCs can start carcinogenesis and are responsible for tumor recurrence after treatment; (3) Although some limitations have been raised, which may oppose the CSC hypothesis, cancer progression and metastasis have been recognized to be caused by CSCs. CONCLUSION: The significant roles of cell therapy may include an auto-transplant with high-dose treatment, an improvement of the immune function, creation of chimeric antigen receptor T cells, and the recruitment of NK cell-based immunotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".