MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074280835 · doi:10.1097/pap.0b013e31827b665b

A Model for the Design and Construction of a Resource for the Validation of Prognostic Prostate Cancer Biomarkers

2012· review· en· W2074280835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Hawley, Ladan Fazli, Jesse K. McKenney, Jeff Simko, Dean A. Troyer, Marlo Nicolas, Lisa F. Newcomb, Janet E. Cowan, Luis Alexander Crouch, Michelle Ferrari, Javier Hernández, Antonio Hurtado‐Coll, Kyle Kuchinsky, Janet Liew, Rosario Mendez-Meza, Elizabeth C. Smith, Imelda Tenggara, Xiaotun Zhang, Peter R. Carroll, June M. Chan, Martin Gleave, Raymond Lance, Daniel W. Lin, Peter S. Nelson, Ian M. Thompson, Ziding Feng, Lawrence D. True, James D. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Anatomic Pathology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
KeywordsProstate cancerProstatectomyTissue microarrayMedicineRetrospective cohort studyOncologyCohortPopulationClinical study designProstateCancerInternal medicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tissue microarrays (TMAs) provide unique resources for rapid evaluation and validation of tissue biomarkers. The Canary Foundation Retrospective Prostate Tissue Microarray Resource used a rigorous statistical design, quota sampling, a variation of the case-cohort study, to select patients for inclusion in a multicenter, retrospective prostate cancer TMA cohort. The study is designed to definitively validate tissue biomarkers of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Tissue samples from over 1000 participants treated for prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy between 1995 and 2004 were selected at 6 participating institutions in the United States and Canada. This design captured the heterogeneity of screening and clinical practices in the contemporary North American population. Standardized clinical data were collected in a centralized database. The project has been informative in several respects. The scale and complexity of assembling TMAs with over 200 cases at each of 6 sites involved unanticipated levels of effort and time. Our statistical design promises to provide a model for outcome-based studies where tissue localization methods are applied to high-density TMAs.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Anatomic PathologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207