Leveraging liquid biopsy to uncover resistance mechanisms and guide personalized immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer therapy has been revolutionized by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that create a new paradigm among cancer immunotherapies. These agents restore the immune system capacity to fight cancer through blocking the action of major immune checkpoint proteins that suppress immune responses such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), which tumors exploit for immune escape. Another advancement is the absence of known biomarkers involves ICIs, which can further be translated into new liquid tests like liquid biopsies, indicating the immune status of the patient. Liquid biopsy is a minimally invasive method for identifying tumor-derived components such as circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA and extracellular vesicles (EVs) from body fluids for analysis. Researchers increasingly use liquid biopsy for biomarkers discovery and patient stratification into clinical applications. Even though immunotherapy has great advances, still there are obstacles faced while using ICIs. Many patients fail to respond to the treatment because of the heterogeneous mechanisms of resistance. Immunotherapy resistance is a dynamic interplay between tumors and their surrounding stroma. To understand this variability, humanized mice models are increasingly used for mirroring human immune responses. Such models offer insight into cancer immunotherapy when human immune system is engrafted into mice, and EV and biomarker profiles are established in those models. EVs reflect differences in tumor characteristics and the immune landscape around tumors to develop personalized strategies to enhance ICI efficacy. This may improve patient prognosis, giving reason to hope for better, more effective treatments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".