MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416394759 · doi:10.1080/14622416.2025.2580271

Cancer genetics and response to oncolytic virus treatment for ovarian cancer

2025· article· en· W4416394759 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin Fletcher, Alison O. Cudmore, Barbara C. Vanderhyden

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacogenomics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOncolytic virusVesicular stomatitis virusOvarian cancerImmune systemHerpes simplex virusVacciniaVirusClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian cancers (OCs) are often defined as poorly immunogenic tumors that have low response rates to current immunotherapies and frequently develop resistance to chemotherapies. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are an emerging therapeutic approach that is favored due to its multifactorial mechanism of action; OVs aim to enhance immune cell recovery and infiltration into the tumor, in addition to assisting the immune system to identify and target evasive tumors. While many different OVs have been studied, this review focuses on the four that have been extensively tested in preclinical models and clinical trials with OC patients: vaccinia viruses, vesicular stomatitis virus, herpes simplex 1, and adenoviruses. We will first explore how these viruses have been developed, modified and tested as monotherapies in OCs, with limited success. The various combinatorial approaches involving OVs that are currently being investigated to improve the outcomes for OC patients will then be addressed. Attention will be given to how the genetics of OC cells may influence response to OVs and how that has led to genetic modifications of OVs that improve the cancer specificity and efficacy of these therapies.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacogenomicsSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207