MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399580174 · doi:10.30683/1927-7229.2024.13.02

New Insights on Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Cancer

2024· article· en· W4399580174 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael J. González, Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Michael Joseph Gonzalez, José Olalde, Miguel J. Berdiel, Liza Cardona

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiogenesisHypoxia (environmental)CancerHyperbaric oxygenationMetastasisMedicineCancer researchHyperbaric oxygenCancer therapyOxygenGlycolysisInternal medicineMetabolismSurgeryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypoxia is a critical characteristic of malignant tumors and involves enhanced cell survival, angiogenesis, glycolytic metabolism, and metastasis. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) has been used to improve and cure disorders involving hypoxia and ischemia, HBOT enhances the amount of dissolved oxygen in the plasma and thereby increasing O2 delivery to the tissue. Studies on HBOT and cancer have mostly focused on whether enhanced oxygen may act as a promoter of cancer. As oxygen is believed to be required for all the major processes of wound healing, including angiogenesis, this particular idea would give the impression that HBOT will promote cancer growth and recurrence. Nevertheless, this is not the case since the use of HBOT in patients with malignancies should be considered safe and therapeutic. There is no evidence indicating that HBO neither acts as a stimulator of tumor growth nor as an enhancer of recurrence. On the other hand, there is evidence that implies that HBO has tumor-inhibitory effects, this manuscript pretends to expand our knowledge on the effect and the mechanisms behind tumor oxygenation by HBOT.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicCancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207