Mechanistic science in cardiovascular-oncology: the way forward to maximise anti-cancer drug effects and minimise cardiovascular toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dramatic improvements in cancer survival have arisen because of the rapid development of novel anti-cancer therapies. The potential for cardiovascular toxicity associated with these drugs often reflects overlap between pathogenic cancer mechanisms and physiological pathways required for normal cardiovascular function. Clinical Science has, therefore, compiled a themed collection on Cardiovascular-Oncology. This collection examines the intersection between cancer treatments and their potentially harmful cardiovascular effects. By defining the mechanisms underlying unwanted cardiovascular effects of anti-cancer therapies, cardioprotective strategies can be developed. Only by doing so, will patients be able to achieve optimal cancer treatment at the minimum cost to cardiovascular health.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".