MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997552972 · doi:10.1111/joim.12097

Genome variation and personalized cancer medicine

2013· review· en· W1997552972 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas J. Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Internal Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and Innovation
KeywordsMedicineDiseasePersonalized medicineProstate cancerPrecision medicinePsychological interventionPancreatic cancerCancerBreast cancerCopy-number variationBioinformaticsColorectal cancerOncologyInternal medicineGenomePathologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic variation, through effects on gene structure and expression, plays an important role in understanding disease predisposition, biology and clinical response to therapy. Transforming this knowledge into clinically relevant information that tailors interventions to an individual's specific genetic, physical, social and environmental profile is challenging. To illustrate how research initiatives at preclinical phases of development are attempting to address clinically important issues in oncology, six clinical problems related to cancers of the colon, prostate, breast, pancreas and brain (medulloblastoma) as well as metastatic disease of different origins are described. A unifying theme across applications is that healthy individuals previously indistinguishable in regards to cancer risk and patients with cancer previously categorized as similar with regard to prognosis or drug response are being stratified into more refined subgroups with different clinical profiles. Effective matching of a broad range of tests with more tailored strategies for prevention and/or treatment will require well-designed clinical studies to evaluate benefits and costs.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Internal MedicineSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207