MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407564365 · doi:10.51601/ijhp.v5i1.404

Mapping the Future: A Content Analysis of the Evolution of Gene Therapy in Urological Cancer

2025· article· en· W4407564365 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Sidharta Krisna, Mojgan Reza, Bobby Aksanda Putra, Muhammad Alif Adhani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health and Pharmaceutical (IJHP) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsSt Martha's Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerCancer therapyComputational biologyGenetic enhancementGeneBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Gene Therapy Has Emerged As A Promising Approach In The Treatment Of Urological Cancers, Including Prostate, Kidney, And Bladder Cancers. Over The Past Decade, Significant Advancements Have Been Made In Gene Editing Technologies Such As Crispr-Cas9, Rna-Based Therapies, And Viral Vector Systems. These Innovations Offer Precise Targeting Of Oncogenes And Tumor Suppressor Genes, Potentially Improving Treatment Efficacy And Reducing Adverse Effects Compared To Conventional Therapies. Methods: A Systematic Content Analysis Was Conducted On Peer-Reviewed Literature And Clinical Trial Reports From 2015 To 2025. Databases Such As Pubmed, Sciencedirect, And Scopus Were Used To Extract Relevant Studies. Inclusion Criteria Encompassed Original Research Articles, Systematic Reviews, And Clinical Trials Focused On Gene Therapy Applications In Prostate, Kidney, And Bladder Cancer. Studies Exclusively Conducted On In Vitro Or Animal Models Without Clinical Relevance Were Excluded. Results: Crispr-Cas9 Has Demonstrated High Precision In Gene Editing, Particularly In Prostate Cancer, Where Targeting Androgen Receptor-Related Genes Has Enhanced Hormone Therapy Sensitivity. Rna Therapy, Especially Using Sirna Targeting Vegf And Hif-1α, Has Shown Promise In Kidney Cancer Treatment By Inhibiting Angiogenesis. Viral Vectors Remain A Primary Method For Gene Delivery In Bladder Cancer, Although Immune Responses Pose A Significant Challenge. Clinical Trials Indicate That Gene Therapy Combined With Immunotherapy, Particularly Checkpoint Inhibitors Like Pembrolizumab, Enhances Treatment Efficacy. However, Regulatory Barriers, High Costs (Estimated At Over $500,000 Per Patient), And Safety Concerns Regarding Off-Target Effects Remain Major Obstacles To Widespread Clinical Implementation. Conclusion: Despite These Challenges, Gene Therapy Holds Great Potential For Revolutionizing Urological Cancer Treatment. Future Research Should Focus On Optimizing Gene Delivery Systems, Reducing Off-Target Risks, And Developing Cost-Effective Production Methods. Personalized Gene Therapy Approaches, Leveraging Advancements In Genomic Sequencing, Are Expected To Further Enhance Treatment Precision. With Continued Innovation And Regulatory Advancements, Gene Therapy Is Anticipated To Become An Integral Part Of Standard Urological Cancer Care In The Coming Decade.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.314 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health and Pharmaceutical (IJHP)Same topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207