MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408275105 · doi:10.37275/bsm.v9i6.1292

Serum Nerve Growth Factor as a Biomarker for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4408275105 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rifki Irsyad, Restu Susanti, Fanny Adhy Putri, Yuliarni Syafrita, Syarif Indra, Reno Bestari

Bibliographic record

VenueBioscientia Medicina Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral neuropathyBiomarkerPeripheralChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathyChemotherapyCross-sectional studyOncologyInternal medicineNerve growth factorPathologyEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and debilitating side effect of cancer treatment. Nerve growth factor (NGF) plays a crucial role in neuronal health and has been implicated in CIPN development. This study investigated the relationship between serum NGF levels and CIPN in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 60 cancer patients receiving chemotherapy at Dr. M. Djamil General Hospital Padang, Indonesia, from June to October 2024. Serum NGF levels were measured, and CIPN was assessed using the Toronto Clinical Scoring System (TCSS). The relationship between NGF and CIPN was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. Results: The median serum NGF level was significantly lower in patients with CIPN (n=43) compared to those without CIPN (n=17) (103.26 pg/ml vs. 148.91 pg/ml, p=0.029). No significant association was found between chemotherapy regimens and CIPN or NGF levels. Conclusion: Lower serum NGF levels are associated with CIPN in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. NGF may serve as a potential biomarker for CIPN, aiding in early detection and management. Further research is needed to explore the clinical utility of NGF as a predictive and monitoring tool for CIPN.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioscientia Medicina Journal of Biomedicine and Translational ResearchSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207