Changing the Landscape of Solid Tumor Therapy From Apoptosis-Promoting to Apoptosis-Inhibiting Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The many limitations of implementing anticancer strategies under the term “precision oncology” have been extensively discussed. While some authors propose promising future directions, others are less optimistic and use phrases such as illusion, hype and false hypotheses. The reality is revealed by practicing clinicians and cancer patients in various online publications, one of which has stated that “in the quest for the next cancer cure, few researchers bother to look back at the graveyard of failed medicines to figure out what went wrong.” The message is clear: novel therapeutic strategies with catchy names (e.g., synthetic “lethality”) have not fulfilled their promises despite decades of extensive research and clinical trials. The main purpose of this review is to discuss key challenges in solid tumor therapy that surprisingly continue to be overlooked by the nomenclature committee on cell death and numerous other authors. These challenges include: the impact of chemotherapy-induced genome chaos (e.g., multinucleation) on resistance and relapse, oncogenic function of caspase 3, cancer cell anastasis (recovery from late stages of apoptosis), and pitfalls of ubiquitously used preclinical chemosensitivity assays (e.g., cell “viability” and tumor growth delay studies in live animals) that score such pro-survival responses as “lethal” events. Studies outline herein underscore the need for new direction in the management of solid tumors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".