MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391170098 · doi:10.1002/ctm2.1544

Seize the engine: Emerging cell cycle targets in breast cancer

2024· review· en· W4391170098 on OpenAlexafffund
Jesús Fuentes‐Antrás, Philippe L. Bédard, David W. Cescon

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Translational Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBreast Cancer Research FoundationPrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyNational Cancer InstituteConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer arises from a series of molecular alterations that disrupt cell cycle checkpoints, leading to aberrant cell proliferation and genomic instability. Targeted pharmacological inhibition of cell cycle regulators has long been considered a promising anti-cancer strategy. Initial attempts to drug critical cell cycle drivers were hampered by poor selectivity, modest efficacy and haematological toxicity. Advances in our understanding of the molecular basis of cell cycle disruption and the mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors have reignited interest in blocking specific components of the cell cycle machinery, such as CDK2, CDK4, CDK7, PLK4, WEE1, PKMYT1, AURKA and TTK. These targets play critical roles in regulating quiescence, DNA replication and chromosome segregation. Extensive preclinical data support their potential to overcome CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance, induce synthetic lethality or sensitise tumours to immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review provides a biological and drug development perspective on emerging cell cycle targets and novel inhibitors, many of which exhibit favourable safety profiles and promising activity 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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations31
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Translational MedicineSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207