MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401357972 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31080321

Deciphering the FGFR2 Code: Innovative Targets in Gastric Cancer Therapy

2024· review· en· W4401357972 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alireza Tojjari, Sarbajeet Nagdas, A.I. Saeed

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFibroblast Growth Factor Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerClinical trialTargeted therapyImmunotherapyOncologyInternal medicineBioinformaticsCancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastric cancer (GC) represents a major global health challenge as a highly prevalent disease with high mortality whose global incidence and mortality are predicted to worsen over the coming years. To date, our standard of care for advanced gastric cancer of combination chemotherapy and immunotherapy has a 1-year overall survival rate of 55%. Significant efforts have gone into identifying targetable alterations in gastric cancer, ultimately yielding the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors (FGFRs) family, specifically FGFR2 as a promising target. FGFR2 is overexpressed in GC, particularly diffuse-type GC, and is associated with poor prognostic outcomes. In recent years, there has been an increasing number of small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies targeting FGFR2 that have entered into clinical trials. Specifically for GC, these agents are currently being trialed in various phases as monotherapies or with standard-of-care treatments to make a clinically meaningful impact on what appears to be an important biological axis of GC. In this review, we outline the underlying biology of FGFR2, its putative role in GC, and the various FGFR2-targeted agents currently in clinical trials for gastric cancer patients as well as postulate some challenges in adopting these therapeutics for clinically meaningful benefit.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicFibroblast Growth Factor ResearchFrench-language works237,207