Canadian Expert Group Consensus Recommendations: KRAS Testing in Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monoclonal antibodies against the epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-egfr) when used in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are associated with improved survival. Patients whose tumours harbor a KRAS mutation in codon 12 or 13 have been shown not to benefit from anti-egfr antibodies. The importance of KRAS mutation status in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has led to the elaboration of Canadian consensus recommendations on KRAS testing, with the aim of standardizing practice across Canada and reconciling testing access with the clinical demand for testing. The present guidelines were developed at a Canadian consensus meeting held in Montreal in April 2010. The best available evidence and expertise were used to develop recommendations for various aspects of KRAS testing, including indications and timing for testing, sample requirements, recommendations for reporting requirements, and acceptable turnaround times.
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 | 0.059 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".