MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220894291 · doi:10.1016/j.it.2022.03.003

All is not lost: learning from 9p21 loss in cancer

2022· review· en· W4220894291 on OpenAlexafffund
Pavlina Spiliopoulou, S.Y. Cindy Yang, Jeff Bruce, Ben X. Wang, Hal K. Berman, Trevor J. Pugh, Lillian L. Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Immunology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersGenentechCanada Research ChairsAstellas Pharma CanadaPrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationMerckUniversity Health NetworkOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchRocheNovartisUniversity of TorontoAbbVieTerry Fox Research InstituteCelgeneBayerBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaAmgenPfizer
KeywordsPembrolizumabGenotypeInformation and Communications TechnologyCancerEvasion (ethics)AntibodyImmune systemImmunologyMedicineOncologyImmunotherapyInternal medicineBiologyGeneGeneticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cancer research community continues to search for additional biomarkers of response and resistance to immune checkpoint treatment (ICT). The ultimate goal is to direct the use of ICT in patients whose tumors are most likely to benefit to achieve a refinement that is equivalent to that of a genotype-matched targeted treatment. Dissecting the mechanisms of ICT resistance can help us characterize ICT nonresponders more efficiently. In this opinion, we argue that there may be additional knowledge gained about immune evasion in cancer by analyzing the loss of the human 9p21.3 locus; as an example, we highlight findings of 9p21.3 loss from the investigator-initiated, pan-cancer INSPIRE study, in which patients were treated with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) ICT.

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)0.002
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations57
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTrends in ImmunologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207