MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399907466 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31070266

Integrating Molecular Insights into Biliary Tract Cancer Management: A Review of Personalized Therapeutic Strategies

2024· review· en· W4399907466 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mar Ros-Buxó, Ezequiel Mauro, Tamara Saurí, Gemma Iserte, Carla Fuster, Alba Díaz, Laura Sererols-Viñas, Silvia Affò, Alejandro Forner

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónEuropean Association for the Study of the LiverSocietat Catalana de DigestologiaAsociación Española para el Estudio del Hígado
KeywordsMedicineBiliary tract cancerPersonalized medicineBiliary tractBioinformaticsCancerComputational biologyData scienceIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare and aggressive malignancies with an increasing incidence and poor prognosis. The standard systemic treatment for BTCs has evolved to include immune checkpoint inhibitors associated with gemcitabine–cisplatin as first-line therapies. However, survival rates remain low, highlighting the critical need for personalized treatment strategies based on molecular profiling. Currently, significant advancements have been made in the molecular characterization of BTCs, where genetic alterations, such as IDH1 mutations and FGFR2 fusions, provide targets for therapy. Molecular profiling is crucial early in the management process to identify potential candidates for clinical trials and guide treatment strategy. The integration of these molecular insights into clinical practice has allowed for the development of targeted therapies, although many of them are still in the phase 2 trial stage without definitive survival benefits demonstrated in phase 3 trials. This integration of comprehensive molecular profile insights with traditional treatment approaches offers a new horizon in the personalized medicine landscape for BTCs, with the aim of significantly improving patient outcomes through precision oncology.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207