MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400444861 · doi:10.3390/nutraceuticals4030022

Effects of Ursolic Acid on Colorectal Cancer: A Review of Recent Evidence

2024· review· en· W4400444861 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Kornel, Evangelia Tsiani

Bibliographic record

VenueNutraceuticals · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNatural product bioactivities and synthesis
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsolic acidColorectal cancerIn vivoAngiogenesisCancerMedicineOncologyApoptosisDiseaseAnimal studiesClinical trialInternal medicinePharmacologyCancer researchBiologyBotanyBiochemistryBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and the five-year survival rate of the metastatic disease is less than 15%. Treatment approaches include surgery, systemic chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The aggressive nature and low five-year survival rate of metastatic colorectal cancer indicate a need for new treatment options to help combat this disease. Ursolic acid is a pentacyclic triterpenoid naturally occurring in many plants, with high concentrations found in cranberries. This review summarizes evidence from the last ten years of the effects of ursolic acid on colorectal cancer. Overall, the available studies indicate that the treatment of colon cancer cells with ursolic acid results in a significant inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis. In addition, the limited in vivo studies indicate a significant reduction in tumor volume and tumor angiogenesis in animal models of colorectal cancer administered ursolic acid. More in vivo animal studies are required to better understand the potential anticancer properties of ursolic acid and to form the basis for human clinical trials.

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)0.000
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutraceuticalsSame topicNatural product bioactivities and synthesisFrench-language works237,207