MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158771720 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103354

Delivery technologies for T cell gene editing: Applications in cancer immunotherapy

2021· review· en· W3158771720 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Aeronautics and Space InstituteInstitute for Translational Medicine and TherapeuticsBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsImmunotherapyCancer immunotherapyCancerGenome editingComputational biologyGeneMedicineBiologyCancer researchGenomeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While initial approaches to adoptive T cell therapy relied on the identification and expansion of rare tumour-reactive T cells, genetic engineering has transformed cancer immunotherapy by enabling the modification of primary T cells to increase their therapeutic potential. Specifically, gene editing technologies have been utilized to create T cell populations with improved responses to antigens, lower rates of exhaustion, and potential for use in allogeneic applications. In this review, we provide an overview of T cell therapy gene editing strategies and the delivery technologies utilized to genetically engineer T cells. We also discuss recent investigations and clinical trials that have utilized gene editing to enhance the efficacy of T cells and broaden the application of cancer immunotherapies.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.342 · 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