MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399787325 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae064.291

HGG-07. INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF SENESCENCE IN PEDIATRIC HIGH-GRADE GLIOMAS

2024· article· en· W4399787325 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy H Chang, Alexander Nassar, Claudia L. Kleinman, Pratiti Bandopadhayay

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSenescenceNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cellular senescence has expanded well past the original definition of just proliferative exhaustion and tumor suppression. Today, senescence is considered a “Hallmark of Cancer” and the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) secretes molecules that can promote oncogenesis, angiogenesis, and an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGGs) are aggressive brain tumors with dismal outcomes and limited therapeutic options. Accumulating evidence suggests potential therapeutic vulnerabilities in targeting senescence in adult solid and brain tumors. Furthermore, senescent immune cells in the TME appear to play an important role in the initiation and progression in adult solid tumors. The role of senescence in pHGGs, however, has not been well described. Here, we show evidence of senescent glial and immune cells in pHGG tumors. Using patient-derived cell lines, we also investigate triggers of senescence and further characterize SASP in pHGGs. By understanding the role of senescence in gliomagenesis, we hope to open new approaches in treating pHGGs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→