MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415680644 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32110604

New Horizons with Growth Differentiation Factor 15 in Oncology: From Cancer Cachexia and Tumour Immunity to Novel Therapeutic Strategies

2025· article· en· W4415680644 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keiji Sugiyama, Naureen Starling, Ian Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsCachexiaCancerNew horizonsClinical trialImmune systemCytokineCancer therapyCancer cachexiaTherapeutic approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a stress-induced cytokine produced by tumour cells and peripheral cells. It is implicated in the development of cancer cachexia, a debilitating condition for which no effective pharmacological therapy currently exists. GDF-15 regulates appetite and metabolic processes through complex neural and hormonal networks. Furthermore, it has been implicated in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, representing a potential therapeutic target. GDF-15 negatively affects tumour immunity, suggesting that anti-GDF-15 therapy could potentially enhance immune responses and help overcome resistance to immunotherapy. Recently, early clinical trials have reported preliminary results of GDF-15-targeted therapies in alleviating cancer cachexia and potentially enhancing the efficacy of immunotherapy. This review aims to provide an overview of the role of GDF-15 in cancer cachexia, including the underlying neural mechanisms and their involvement in tumour immunity. This review also summarises recent clinical trial findings and discusses future perspectives on GDF-15-targeted therapy in oncology, offering important insights for future research.

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)0.000
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 score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207