Biomarkers for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has revolutionized renal cell carcinoma treatment. Patients previously thought to be palliative now occasionally achieve complete cures from ICI. However, since immunotherapies stimulate the immune system to induce anti-tumor immunity, they often lead to adverse autoimmunity. Furthermore, some patients receive no benefit from ICI, thereby unnecessarily risking adverse events. In many tumor types, PD-L1 expression levels, immune infiltration, and tumor mutation burden predict the response to ICI and help inform clinical decision making to better target ICI to patients most likely to experience benefits. Unfortunately, renal cell carcinoma is an outlier, as these biomarkers fail to discriminate between positive and negative responses to ICI therapy. Emerging biomarkers such as gene expression profiles and the loss of pro-angiogenic proteins VHL and PBRM-1 show promise for identifying renal cell carcinoma cases likely to respond to ICI. This review provides an overview of the mechanistic underpinnings of different biomarkers and describes the theoretical rationale for their use. We discuss the effectiveness of each biomarker in renal cell carcinoma and other cancer types, and we introduce novel biomarkers that have demonstrated some promise in clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".