MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387653137 · doi:10.1172/jci174319

Chemical carcinogens: implications for cancer treatment

2023· letter· en· W4387653137 on OpenAlexafffund
Shaofeng Liu, Mary Saunders, Tak W. Mak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune cells in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Institute
KeywordsCarcinogenImmunogenicityCancerTumor microenvironmentCancer researchImmune systemReprogrammingImmunotherapyCancer immunotherapyLung cancerImmunologyCarcinogenesisBiologyMedicineCellOncologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carcinogen exposure has been associated with enhanced cancer immunogenicity that is often attributed to neoantigen generation. However, the broader, neoantigen-independent impact of carcinogens on immune responses to cancer cells remains underexplored. In this issue of the JCI, Huang et al. uncover a mechanism wherein carcinogen-treated cancer cells exhibit an inability to establish an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) due to reduced M-CSF expression. Intriguingly, the so-called carcinogen-induced tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) within this TME exhibited anti-tumor properties instead of the conventional immunosuppressive phenotype. This phenomenon extended to human lung cancers, as evidenced by TAM reprogramming in smokers versus nonsmokers. This study substantially advances our understanding of carcinogen-mediated effects on cancer immunogenicity, potentially redirecting approaches to cancer immunotherapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicImmune cells in cancerFrench-language works237,207