Application of CRISPR/Cas9 Technology in Cancer Treatment: A Future Direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene editing, especially with clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats associated protein 9 (CRISPR-Cas9), has advanced gene function science. Gene editing's rapid advancement has increased its medical/clinical value. Due to its great specificity and efficiency, CRISPR/Cas9 can accurately and swiftly screen the whole genome. This simplifies disease-specific gene therapy. To study tumor origins, development, and metastasis, CRISPR/Cas9 can change genomes. In recent years, tumor treatment research has increasingly employed this method. CRISPR/Cas9 can treat cancer by removing genes or correcting mutations. Numerous preliminary tumor treatment studies have been conducted in relevant fields. CRISPR/Cas9 may treat gene-level tumors. CRISPR/Cas9-based personalized and targeted medicines may shape tumor treatment. This review examines CRISPR/Cas9 for tumor therapy research, which will be helpful in providing references for future studies on the pathogenesis of malignancy and its treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".