MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396706135 · doi:10.3390/ijms25105067

PROTACs in Ovarian Cancer: Current Advancements and Future Perspectives

2024· review· en· W4396706135 on OpenAlexafffund
Makenzie Vorderbruggen, Carlos A. Velázquez‐Martínez, Amarnath Natarajan, Adam R. Karpf

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteOvarian Cancer Research FundU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsOvarian cancerMedicineCancerMalignancyReview articleBioinformaticsOncologyInternal medicineBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic malignancy. The majority of patients diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer will relapse, at which point additional therapies can be administered but, for the most part, these are not curative. As such, a need exists for the development of novel therapeutic options for ovarian cancer patients. Research in the field of targeted protein degradation (TPD) through the use of proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) has significantly increased in recent years. The ability of PROTACs to target proteins of interest (POI) for degradation, overcoming limitations such as the incomplete inhibition of POI function and the development of resistance seen with other inhibitors, is of particular interest in cancer research, including ovarian cancer research. This review provides a synopsis of PROTACs tested in ovarian cancer models and highlights PROTACs characterized in other types of cancers with potential high utility in ovarian cancer. Finally, we discuss methods that will help to enable the selective delivery of PROTACs to ovarian cancer and improve the pharmacodynamic properties of these agents.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207