MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B14: FISH-based differentiation of adenoma carcinoma (AC) from squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC): Optimizing probe selection using in silico modeling

2012· article· en· W1991981771 on OpenAlexaff
Calum MacAulay, Akhila Srinidhi, Albertina Wong, Will Lockwood, Brad Coe, Ian M. Wilson, Stephen Lam, Wan L. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn silicoBiologyRobustness (evolution)Computational biologyComputer scienceGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: FISH is a powerful technique to detect specific genomic sequences within an individual cell. Differences in the genetic makeup of AC and SqCC of the lung have been documented. A robust genetic based test applicable to sections from FFPE for the classification of AC vs SqCC tissue could have clinical utility as this classification can determine treatment selection. The optimal translation of array based genetic alterations data (in the form of copy number alterations) into a select set of FISH probes is nontrivial. One must consider the type (gain or loss), the extent and fidelity of the alteration (length in base pairs of the alteration common across the data set being considered which will affect FISH probe signal strength). Also one must consider effects the sectioning process will have on the actual FISH measurements; thick sections – more complete nuclei (better genetic loci fidelity) but more nuclear overlap (more difficult recognition of individual nuclei), thin sections – less nuclei overlap between cells but less complete nuclei. We use an in silico simulation to model the effect sectioning will have on the robustness and efficacy of a FISH based classifier for the genetic based differentiation of AC from SqCC tissue. Methods: High resolution array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) tiling array data was used to identify recurrent copy number alterations that could be used to differentiate between 169 AC and 92 SqCC cases. An in silico simulation of the sectioning process on the detection of these alterations was programmed in MATLAB. This simulation modeled the physical distribution of the DNA sequence, chromosome by chromosome within individual modeled nuclei. For each of the 261 cases chromosomal loci gains were randomly inserted into the cell's DNA irrespective of chromosome and chromosomal loci deletions were assumed to occur in only one of that specific chromosome type. Gains and losses were assumed to linearly affect the size of chromosomes and cell nuclei. Cell nuclei sectioning was simulated 300 times for each case (10 different nuclear rotations for each of ten different chromosomal placement simulations within the nucleus for three different section thicknesses of 4um, 7um and 10 um). The number of spots that would be detected by FISH for each of these 300 simulations for each case for all 24,817 loci measured by the aCGH was saved for later classification accuracy analysis. Results: The accuracy of the in silico model was checked against expected out comes; 1) such as the average loss of FISH spots as a function of the loss of nuclear volume to sectioning for loci with 1, 2 or 3 expected copies and 2) the concurrent loss of adjacent loci, or the loss of all loci within a chromosome with the loss of that chromosome. These measures were validated across at least 10K simulations. From the simulations we computed graphs of the number of loci retained as a function of the maximum radius of the nuclear material left within the section for each cell (an observable feature under microscopy). Further we calculated what percentage of nuclei within the section would have a maximum radius larger than 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90% of the pre-section nuclear radius for each case. This was done the 3 section thickness. Finally we used the simulation data to see the effect of sectioning on case classification, the number of cells which must be measured per case for optimal classification and the selection of the optimal genomic loci to differentiate the two types of tissue.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207