The expression pattern of Immune checkpoints after chemo/radiotherapy in the tumor microenvironment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a disease with the highest disease-associated burden worldwide, cancer has been the main subject of a considerable proportion of medical research in recent years, intending to find more effective therapeutic approaches with fewer side effects. Combining conventional methods with newer biologically based treatments such as immunotherapy can be a promising approach to treating different tumors. The concept of "cancer immunoediting" that occurs in the field of the tumor microenvironment (TME) is the aspect of cancer therapy that has not been at the center of attention. One group of the role players of the so-called immunoediting process are the immune checkpoint molecules that exert either co-stimulatory or co-inhibitory effects in the anti-tumor immunity of the host. It involves alterations in a wide variety of immunologic pathways. Recent studies have proven that conventional cancer therapies, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or a combination of them, i.e., chemoradiotherapy, alter the "immune compartment" of the TME. The mentioned changes encompass a wide range of variations, including the changes in the density and immunologic type of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and the alterations in the expression patterns of the different immune checkpoints. These rearrangements can have either anti-tumor immunity empowering or immune attenuating sequels. Thus, recognizing the consequences of various chemo(radio)therapeutic regimens in the TME seems to be of great significance in the evolution of therapeutic approaches. Therefore, the present review intends to summarize how chemo(radio)therapy affects the TME and specifically some of the most important, well-known immune checkpoints' expressions according to the recent studies in this field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".