MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311677544 · doi:10.3390/ijms232315410

Revisiting the Anti-Cancer Toxicity of Clinically Approved Platinating Derivatives

2022· review· en· W4311677544 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin N. Forgie, Rewati Prakash, Carlos M. Telleria

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOvarian Cancer CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsDNA damageCisplatinCell biologyEndoplasmic reticulumMitochondrionApoptosisCancer cellOxaliplatinProgrammed cell deathUnfolded protein responseDNA repairBiologyChemistryCancer researchCancerDNABiochemistryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cisplatin (CDDP), carboplatin (CP), and oxaliplatin (OXP) are three platinating agents clinically approved worldwide for use against a variety of cancers. They are canonically known as DNA damage inducers; however, that is only one of their mechanisms of cytotoxicity. CDDP mediates its effects through DNA damage-induced transcription inhibition and apoptotic signalling. In addition, CDDP targets the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) to induce ER stress, the mitochondria via mitochondrial DNA damage leading to ROS production, and the plasma membrane and cytoskeletal components. CP acts in a similar fashion to CDDP by inducing DNA damage, mitochondrial damage, and ER stress. Additionally, CP is also able to upregulate micro-RNA activity, enhancing intrinsic apoptosis. OXP, on the other hand, at first induces damage to all the same targets as CDDP and CP, yet it is also capable of inducing immunogenic cell death via ER stress and can decrease ribosome biogenesis through its nucleolar effects. In this comprehensive review, we provide detailed mechanisms of action for the three platinating agents, going beyond their nuclear effects to include their cytoplasmic impact within cancer cells. In addition, we cover their current clinical use and limitations, including side effects and mechanisms of resistance.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations70
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207