MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414106947 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116258

Next-gen tools in cancer neuroscience

2025· review· en· W4414106947 on OpenAlexafffund
Vera Thiel, Debpali Sur, Caroline C. Picoli, Tamara McErlain, Katalina Couto, David Simon, Yuan Pan, Karen O. Dixon, Rajan P. Kulkarni, Sébastien Talbot, Alexander Birbrair

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchVetenskapsrådetNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseCanadian Cancer SocietyNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchCanada Foundation for InnovationRobert J. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg FoundationU.S. Department of DefenseAndrew Sabin Family FoundationAmerican Cancer SocietyU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsGilbert Family FoundationCancer Prevention and Research Institute of TexasUniversity of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer CenterSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSystems neuroscienceClosing (real estate)Field (mathematics)CancerKey (lock)Computational neuroscienceEmerging technologies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emerging field of cancer neuroscience is rapidly evolving, driven by novel technologies and tools. These include advances in single-cell and spatial transcriptomics; genetic mouse models paired with automated high-throughput; and innovative optical electrophysiological approaches, optogenetics, chemogenetics, engineered viruses, and new methods for visualizing neuronal activity. Collectively, these technologies are revolutionizing how we investigate, manipulate, and characterize distinct components that contribute to the nervous system-cancer interface. In the present review, we discuss the key technologies that are closing the gap between oncology and neuroscience, highlighting the innovations that are propelling the cancer neuroscience field forward.

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)0.002
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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207