Cancer stem cell hypothesis 2.0 in glioblastoma: Where are we now and where are we going?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 2 decades, the cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis has provided insight into many malignant tumors, including glioblastoma (GBM). Cancer stem cells have been identified in patient-derived tumors and in some mouse models, allowing for a deeper understanding of cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying GBM growth and therapeutic resistance. The CSC hypothesis has been the cornerstone of cellular heterogeneity, providing a conceptual and technical framework to explain this longstanding phenotype in GBM. This hypothesis has evolved to fit recent insights into how cellular plasticity drives tumor growth to suggest that CSCs do not represent a distinct population but rather a cellular state with substantial plasticity that can be achieved by non-CSCs under specific conditions. This has further been reinforced by advances in genomics, including single-cell approaches, that have used the CSC hypothesis to identify multiple putative CSC states with unique properties, including specific developmental and metabolic programs. In this review, we provide a historical perspective on the CSC hypothesis and its recent evolution, with a focus on key functional phenotypes, and provide an update on the definition for its use in future genomic studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".