MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393869729 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31040150

KRAS: Biology, Inhibition, and Mechanisms of Inhibitor Resistance

2024· article· en· W4393869729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leonard J. Ash, Ottavia Busia-Bourdain, Daniel Okpattah, Avrosina Kamel, Ariel N. Liberchuk, Andrew L. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeptidase Inhibition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHunter CollegeCenter for the Study of Philanthropy, City University of New YorkNational Cancer InstituteCity University of New YorkDamon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsKRASCancer researchReprogrammingBiologyMutantEpigeneticsMutationComputational biologyBioinformaticsGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KRAS is a small GTPase that is among the most commonly mutated oncogenes in cancer. Here, we discuss KRAS biology, therapeutic avenues to target it, and mechanisms of resistance that tumors employ in response to KRAS inhibition. Several strategies are under investigation for inhibiting oncogenic KRAS, including small molecule compounds targeting specific KRAS mutations, pan-KRAS inhibitors, PROTACs, siRNAs, PNAs, and mutant KRAS-specific immunostimulatory strategies. A central challenge to therapeutic effectiveness is the frequent development of resistance to these treatments. Direct resistance mechanisms can involve KRAS mutations that reduce drug efficacy or copy number alterations that increase the expression of mutant KRAS. Indirect resistance mechanisms arise from mutations that can rescue mutant KRAS-dependent cells either by reactivating the same signaling or via alternative pathways. Further, non-mutational forms of resistance can take the form of epigenetic marks, transcriptional reprogramming, or alterations within the tumor microenvironment. As the possible strategies to inhibit KRAS expand, understanding the nuances of resistance mechanisms is paramount to the development of both enhanced therapeutics and innovative drug combinations.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations47
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicPeptidase Inhibition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207