MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Simplified, Noninvasive Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Detection

2008· article· en· W2069663898 on OpenAlexaff
Steven H. Itzkowitz, Randall E. Brand, Lina Jandorf, Kris Durkee, John M. Millholland, Linda Rabeneck, Paul C. Schroy, Stephen J. Sontag, David A. Johnson, Sanford D. Markowitz, Lawrence Paszat, Barry M. Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerColonoscopyFecal occult bloodCancerDNAInternal medicineNuclear medicineOncologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As a noninvasive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test, a multi-marker first generation stool DNA (sDNA V 1.0) test is superior to guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests. An improved sDNA assay (version 2), utilizing only two markers, hypermethylated vimentin gene (hV) and a two site DNA integrity assay (DY), demonstrated in a training set (phase 1a) an even higher sensitivity (88%) for CRC with a specificity of 82%. AIM: To validate in an independent set of patients (phase 1b) the sensitivity and specificity of sDNA version 2 for CRC. METHODS: Forty-two patients with CRC and 241 subjects with normal colonoscopy (NC) provided stool samples, to which they immediately added DNA stabilizing buffer, and mailed their specimen to the laboratory. DNA was purified using gel-based capture, and analyzed for hV and DY using methods identical to those previously published. RESULTS: Using the same cutpoints as the 1a training set (N = 162; 40 CRCs, 122 normals), hV demonstrated a higher and DY a slightly lower sensitivity, for a combined sensitivity of hV + DY of 86%. Optimal cutpoints based on the combined phase 1a + 1b dataset (N = 445; 82 CRCs, 363 normals) yielded a CRC sensitivity of 83%. The vast majority of cancers were detected regardless of tumor stage, tumor location, or patient age. Assay specificity in the phase 1b dataset for hV, DY, and hV + DY was 82%, 85%, and 73%, respectively, using the phase 1a cutpoints. Optimal cutpoints based on the combined phase 1a + 1b dataset yield a specificity of 82%. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides validation of a simplified, improved sDNA test that incorporates only two markers and that demonstrates high sensitivity (83%) and specificity (82%) for CRC. Test performance is highly reproducible in a large set of patients. The use of only two markers will make the test easier to perform, reduce the cost, and facilitate distribution to local laboratories.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations163
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207