Detecting colorectal cancer by <sup>1</sup>H magnetic resonance spectroscopy of fecal extracts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the western world. Its early detection has been found to improve the prognosis of the patient, providing a wide window of opportunity for successful therapeutic interventions. However, current diagnostic techniques all have some limitations; there is a need to develop a better technique for routine screening purposes. We present a new methodology based on magnetic resonance spectroscopy of fecal extracts for the non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer. Five hundred twenty-three human subjects (412 with no colonic neoplasia and 111 with colorectal cancer, who were scheduled for colonoscopy or surgery) were recruited to donate a single sample of stool. One-dimensional (1)H magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) experiments were performed on the supernatant of aqueous dispersions of the stool samples. Using a statistical classification strategy, several multivariate classifiers were developed. Applying the preprocessing, feature selection and classifier development stages of the Statistical Classification Strategy led to approximately 87% average balanced sensitivity and specificity for both training and monitoring sets, improving to approximately 92% when only crisp results, i.e. class assignment probabilities > or =75%, are considered. These results indicate that (1)H magnetic resonance spectroscopy of human fecal extracts, combined with appropriate data analysis methodology, has the potential to detect colorectal neoplasia accurately and reliably, and could be a useful addition to the current screening tools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it