MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394816071 · doi:10.1080/14728214.2024.2339906

Emerging monoclonal antibody therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

2024· article· en· W4394816071 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Proulx-Rocray, Denis Soulières

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Emerging Drugs · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaOncologyInternal medicineHead and neckIncidence (geometry)Monoclonal antibodyHead and neck cancerImmunotherapyAntibodyCancerImmunologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is increasing, particularly among younger populations. It is projected that the number of new cases will increase by almost 50% by 2040, with market revenues expected to triple in the same period. Despite the recent introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into the therapeutic armamentarium, the vast majority of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC fail to derive durable benefits from systemic therapy. AREAS COVERED: This article aims to review the multiple monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) regimens currently under development, targeting various growth factors, immune checkpoints, immune costimulatory receptors, and more. EXPERT OPINION: So far, the combination of anti-EGFR and ICI appears to be the most promising, especially in HPV-negative patients. It will be interesting to confirm whether the arrival of antibody-drug conjugates and bispecific mAb can surpass the efficacy of anti-EGFR, as they are also being tested in combination with ICI. Furthermore, we believe that immune costimulatory agonists and various ICIs combination are worth monitoring, despite some initial setbacks.

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 score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Emerging DrugsSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207