MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289111514 · doi:10.3390/cancers14153698

Immunology Meets Bioengineering: Improving the Effectiveness of Glioblastoma Immunotherapy

2022· review· en· W4289111514 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Fekrirad, Amir Barzegar Behrooz, Shokoofeh Ghaemi, Arezou Khosrojerdi, Atefeh Zarepour, Ali Zarrabi, Ehsan Arefian, Saeid Ghavami

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyOncolytic virusMedicineGlioblastomaRadiation therapyCancer immunotherapyCancerCancer researchImmune systemImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glioblastoma (GBM) therapy has seen little change over the past two decades. Surgical excision followed by radiation and chemotherapy is the current gold standard treatment. Immunotherapy techniques have recently transformed many cancer treatments, and GBM is now at the forefront of immunotherapy research. GBM immunotherapy prospects are reviewed here, with an emphasis on immune checkpoint inhibitors and oncolytic viruses. Various forms of nanomaterials to enhance immunotherapy effectiveness are also discussed. For GBM treatment and immunotherapy, we outline the specific properties of nanomaterials. In addition, we provide a short overview of several 3D (bio)printing techniques and their applications in stimulating the GBM microenvironment. Lastly, the susceptibility of GBM cancer cells to the various immunotherapy methods will be addressed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicNanoplatforms for cancer theranosticsFrench-language works237,207