MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract IA003: Molecular and imaging biomarkers of PARP inhibitors for small cell lung cancer

2024· article· en· W4390757470 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin H. Lok

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineContext (archaeology)PARP inhibitorCancerCancer researchLiquid biopsyPositron emission tomographyBiomarkerOncologyPoly ADP ribose polymeraseBioinformaticsPathologyInternal medicineNuclear medicineDNABiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This presentation will briefly define the different types of biomarkers and subsequently will cover examples of response, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers from preclinical and clinical evidence for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The talk will cover examples with translational relevance, including intrinsic molecular features associated with DNA damage repair and response to PARP inhibitors, with a focus on the SCLC-specific context. Additionally, it will delve into the use of positron emission tomography with a radiolabeled PARP inhibitor to assess pharmacodynamic response, and the utilization of liquid biopsy patient blood samples for interrogating the tumor methylome with prognostic associations. Future opportunities and directions both specific to the aforementioned examples and more generally will be discussed. Citation Format: Benjamin H. Lok. Molecular and imaging biomarkers of PARP inhibitors for small cell lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: DNA Damage Repair: From Basic Science to Future Clinical Application; 2024 Jan 9-11; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(1 Suppl):Abstract nr IA003.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207