Next-Generation Sequencing Approaches in Cancer: Where Have They Brought Us and Where Will They Take Us?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies and data have revolutionized cancer research and are increasingly being deployed to guide clinicians in treatment decision-making. NGS technologies have allowed us to take an "omics" approach to cancer in order to reveal genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic landscapes of individual malignancies. Integrative multi-platform analyses are increasingly used in large-scale projects that aim to fully characterize individual tumours as well as general cancer types and subtypes. In this review, we examine how NGS technologies in particular have contributed to "omics" approaches in cancer research, allowing for large-scale integrative analyses that consider hundreds of tumour samples. These types of studies have provided us with an unprecedented wealth of information, providing the background knowledge needed to make small-scale (including "N of 1") studies informative and relevant. We also take a look at emerging opportunities provided by NGS and state-of-the-art third-generation sequencing technologies, particularly in the context of translational research. Cancer research and care are currently poised to experience significant progress catalyzed by accessible sequencing technologies that will benefit both clinical- and research-based efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".