MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386905526 · doi:10.14740/wjon1655

Biology of Mesothelin and Clinical Implications: A Review of Existing Literature

2023· review· en· W4386905526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brendan Hagerty, Kazuaki Takabe

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesothelinMedicineFunction (biology)Cancer researchComputational biologyCancerBioinformaticsOncologyBiologyInternal medicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its discovery in 1992, mesothelin (MSLN) has generated significant interest as a therapeutic target. A number of characteristics make it ideal for this purpose. First, it is not expressed on the parenchyma of any vital organs. Second, it is differentially expressed on a number of cancer types that have relatively poor prognosis and lack effective systemic options. Third, it is expressed on the cell membrane making it accessible to large molecule targeted therapies. However, unlike other drug targets that have been exploited for therapeutic benefit, the precise function of MSLN, why it is expressed in certain cancers, and its biological role have not been clearly elucidated. Here the existing literature on the cellular function and expression patterns of MSLN across tumor types is reviewed in order to gain further understanding of this intriguing molecule. In doing so, we conclude that there remains significant ambiguity surrounding its function and role in cellular and tumor biology. Furthermore, the expression of MSLN and its relation of prognosis seems to depend on the type of tumor. Finally, the unified mechanism by which MSLN acts as a protein that conveys tumor aggressiveness remains elusive. What is clear is that there is much yet to be discovered in this realm and doing so may have large implications for treatment of otherwise lethal malignancies.

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)0.001
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 score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207