MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321375715 · doi:10.3390/cancers15041300

The Role of Microbiota-Derived Vitamins in Immune Homeostasis and Enhancing Cancer Immunotherapy

2023· review· en· W4321375715 on OpenAlexafffund
Hasti Gholami, John A. Chmiel, Jeremy P. Burton, Saman Maleki Vareki

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWestern University
KeywordsImmune systemBiologyGut floraImmunotherapyMicrobiomeFunction (biology)Cancer immunotherapyCancerMicrobial metabolismBacteriaImmunologyBioinformaticsCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Not all cancer patients who receive immunotherapy respond positively and emerging evidence suggests that the gut microbiota may be linked to treatment efficacy. Though mechanisms of microbial contributions to the immune response have been postulated, one likely function is the supply of basic co-factors to the host including selected vitamins. Bacteria, fungi, and plants can produce their own vitamins, whereas humans primarily obtain vitamins from exogenous sources, yet despite the significance of microbial-derived vitamins as crucial immune system modulators, the microbiota is an overlooked source of these nutrients in humans. Microbial-derived vitamins are often shared by gut bacteria, stabilizing bioenergetic pathways amongst microbial communities. Compositional changes in gut microbiota can affect metabolic pathways that alter immune function. Similarly, the immune system plays a pivotal role in maintaining the gut microbiota, which parenthetically affects vitamin biosynthesis. Here we elucidate the immune-interactive mechanisms underlying the effects of these microbially derived vitamins and how they can potentially enhance the activity of immunotherapies in cancer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 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

Citations38
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207