MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313231353 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1126494

Editorial: Therapies and influences in urothelial carcinoma

2022· editorial· en· W4313231353 on OpenAlexaff
G. Ozgun, Sumit Isharwal, B. J. Eigl

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrothelial carcinomaGenitourinary systemMedicineOncologyUrologyInternal medicineGeneral surgeryGynecologyBladder cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editorial on the Research TopicTherapies and influences in urothelial carcinoma Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with more than 570,000 new cases per year.Despite recent therapeutic advances, long-term survival rates for metastatic UC remain poor.There is an urgent need not just for better therapies but also for clinical indicators, biomarkers, and treatment approaches for UC.This Research Topic encompasses a selection of research papers in UC, including molecular research, new therapeutic approaches, treatment guidance, and prediction of treatment response that may influence future directions.Nelson et al. set the stage with a thorough review of the many different approaches and molecular targets currently being exploited or explored for anti-UC therapeutics.There are already at least 4 different classes of therapies (cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, small molecule inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates) that are FDA approved for the treatment of advanced UC.We are reminded of the recent and rapid explosion of our understanding of UC as a disease that can be sub-classified according to differential RNA expression and further stratified through genomic and biomarker analyses such that targeted molecular therapies will play a larger role along with established therapies.Although immunotherapies have opened a new era in the treatment of bladder cancer, only a limited number of patients respond to treatment.Currently available markers such as tissue PD-L1 staining fails as predictive biomarkers of response, and a clinically useful marker is desperately needed.Using mass and flow cytometry techniques, Lavoie et al. evaluated the circulating immune compartment of patients exposed to PD-1 inhibitors.They discovered marked differences and dynamic changes in the frequency of specific immune cells after treatment.The main finding was that higher frequencies of naïve CD4+ T cells, lower frequencies of CD161+ Th17 cells, and CCR4+ Th2 cells were found in responders.Overall, a less naive and more activated T-cell phenotype was found in non-responder patients.They also showed a clonal expansion of g/d-T cells in a responder, which might serve as a new marker.While this is a small proofof-concept study, if validated, this approach could allow for non-invasive, serial sampling Frontiers in Oncology frontiersin.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0120.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.011

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207