MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1948071987 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.600

Biomarkers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer

2013· article· en· W1948071987 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lorne I. Budman, Wassim Kassouf, Jordan Steinberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystoscopyMedicineBladder cancerCytologyUrine cytologyDipstickUrologyCarcinoma in situUrinary systemCancerUrineBiomarkerGynecologyOncologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men and the ninth most common cancer in women in Canada. Early detection of tumours is essential for improved prognosis and long-term survival. The standard method for detection and surveillance is cystoscopy together with urine cytology. Cystoscopy is relatively sensitive but is expensive and invasive. Urinary cytology is a noninvasive method that has poor sensitivity but high specificity; it is relied on for the detection of carcinoma in situ. Currently, several urinary-based bladder tumour biomarkers with USFDA/Health Canada approval are available commercially, but none have been widely adopted by urologists despite their offering high sensitivity and/or specificity. We present here a review of recent studies evaluating 7 commercial biomarker assays for the detection and/or surveillance of bladder cancer. RESULTS: SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY RANGES, RESPECTIVELY, FOR EACH MARKER WERE REPORTED AS FOLLOWS: BTA Stat (Polymedco), 52.5%-78.0% and 69.0%-87.1%; BTA Trak (Polymedco), 51%-100% and 73%-92.5%; cytology, 12.1%-84.6% and 78.0%-100%; hematuria dipstick, 47.0%-92.6% and 51.0%-84.0%; NMP22 Bladder Cancer Test (Matritech), 34.6%-100% and 60.0%-95.0%; NMP22 BladderChek (Matritech), 49.5%-65.0% and 40.0%-89.8%; ImmunoCyt/uCyt+ (DiagnoCure), 63.3%-84.9% and 62.0%-78.1%; ImmunoCyt/uCyt+ and cytology, 81.0%-89.3% and 61.0%-77.7%; and UroVysion (Abbott Molecular)/florescence in situ hybridization, 68.6%-100% and 65.0%-96.0%. CONCLUSION: We find that no currently available bladder cancer urinary marker is sensitive enough to eliminate the need for cystoscopy. In addition, cytology remains integral to the detection of occult cancer. However, owing to their relatively high sensitivities, these markers may be used to extend the period between cystoscopies in the surveillance of patients with transitional cell carcinoma. Further study is required to determine which markers, alone or in panel, would best accomplish this.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations144
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207