Fuel for thought: targeting metabolism in lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over a century, we have appreciated that the biochemical processes through which micro- and macronutrients are anabolized and catabolized-collectively referred to as "cellular metabolism"-are reprogrammed in malignancies. Cancer cells in lung tumors rewire pathways of nutrient acquisition and metabolism to meet the bioenergetic demands for unchecked proliferation. Advances in precision medicine have ushered in routine genotyping of patient lung tumors, enabling a deeper understanding of the contribution of altered metabolism to tumor biology and patient outcomes. This paradigm shift in thoracic oncology has spawned a new enthusiasm for dissecting oncogenotype-specific metabolic phenotypes and creates opportunity for selective targeting of essential tumor metabolic pathways. In this review, we discuss metabolic states across histologic and molecular subtypes of lung cancers and the additional changes in tumor metabolic pathways that occur during acquired therapeutic resistance. We summarize the clinical investigation of metabolism-specific therapies, addressing successes and limitations to guide the evaluation of these novel strategies in the clinic. Beyond changes in tumor metabolism, we also highlight how non-cellular autonomous processes merit particular consideration when manipulating metabolic processes systemically, such as efforts to disentangle how lung tumor cells influence immunometabolism. As the future of metabolic therapeutics hinges on use of models that faithfully recapitulate metabolic rewiring in lung cancer, we also discuss best practices for harmonizing workflows to capture patient specimens for translational metabolic analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".