MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106755160 · doi:10.3390/cancers12123529

Current Progresses and Challenges of Immunotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

2020· review· en· W3106755160 on OpenAlexafffund
Karan Mediratta, Sara El‐Sahli, Vanessa M. D’Costa, Lisheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and ImmunityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research SocietyUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsTriple-negative breast cancerImmunotherapyMedicineImmunogenicityBreast cancerCancer immunotherapyCancerOncologyTargeted therapyImmune systemImmunologyCancer researchInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With improved understanding of the immunogenicity of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), immunotherapy has emerged as a promising candidate to treat this lethal disease owing to the lack of specific targets and effective treatments. While immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has been effectively used in immunotherapy for several types of solid tumor, monotherapies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1), its ligand PD-L1, or cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) have shown little efficacy for TNBC patients. Over the past few years, various therapeutic candidates have been reviewed, attempting to improve ICI efficacy on TNBC through combinatorial treatment. In this review, we describe the clinical limitations of ICI and illustrate candidates from an immunological, pharmacological, and metabolic perspective that may potentiate therapy to improve the outcomes of TNBC patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations104
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207