MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073789235

Reovirus in cancer therapy: an evidence-based review

2014· review· en· W7073789235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncolytic virusClinical trialCancerAdverse effectRadiation therapyProstate cancerHead and neckHead and neck cancerOvarian cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Derek Clements,1,* Erin Helson,2,* Shashi A Gujar,2,3 Patrick WK Lee1,2  1Department of Pathology, 2Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Dalhousie University, 3Strategy and Organizational Performance, IWK Health Center, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada *These authors contributed equally to this work, and are joint first authors Abstract: Reovirus, a double-stranded ribonucleic acid virus and benign human pathogen, preferentially infects and kills cancer cells in its unmodified form, and is one of the leading oncolytic viruses currently undergoing clinical trials internationally. With 32 clinical trials completed or ongoing thus far, reovirus has demonstrated clinical therapeutic applicability against a multitude of cancers, including but not limited to breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, malignant gliomas, advanced head and neck cancers, and metastatic ovarian cancers. Phase I trials have demonstrated that reovirus is safe to use via both intralesional/intratumoral and systemic routes of administration, with the most common adverse reactions being grade I/II toxicities, such as flu-like illness (fatigue, nausea, vomiting, headache, fever/chills, dizziness), diarrhea, and lymphopenia. In subsequent Phase II trials, reovirus administration was demonstrated to successfully decrease tumor size and promote tumor necrosis, thereby complementing compelling preclinical evidence of tumor destruction by the virus. Importantly, reovirus has been shown to be effective as a monotherapy, as well as in combination with other anticancer options, including radiation and chemotherapeutic agents, such as gemcitabine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, and carboplatin. Of note, the first Phase III clinical trial using reovirus in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin for the treatment of head and neck cancers is under way. Based on the evidence from clinical trials, we comprehensively review the use of reovirus as an anticancer agent, acknowledge key obstacles, and suggest future directions to ultimately potentiate the efficacy of reovirus oncotherapy. Keywords: virotherapy, reovirus, oncotherapy

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)Same topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207