MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098633524 · doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0128-4

Development of cancer genetic services in the UK: A national consultation

2015· article· en· W2098633524 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid Slade, Daniel Riddell, Clare Turnbull, Helen Hanson, Nazneen Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsGenetic testingService delivery frameworkMedicineWorkforcePopulationHuman geneticsConsistency (knowledge bases)Service (business)BusinessGeneticsComputer sciencePolitical scienceBiologyGeneEnvironmental healthMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Technological advances in DNA sequencing have made gene testing fast and affordable, but there are challenges to the translation of these improvements for patient benefit. The Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) programme is exploiting advances in DNA sequencing to develop the infrastructure, processes and capabilities required for cancer gene testing to become routinely available to all those that can benefit. METHODS: The MCG programme held a consultation day to discuss the development of cancer genetics with senior representation from all 24 UK cancer genetic centres. The current service landscape and capacity for expansion was assessed through structured questionnaires. Workshop discussion addressed the opportunities and challenges to increasing cancer gene testing in the National Health Service (NHS). RESULTS: Services vary with respect to population served and models of service delivery, and with respect to methods and thresholds for determining risk and testing eligibility. Almost all centres want to offer more cancer gene testing (82%) and reported increasing demand for testing from non-genetic clinical colleagues (92%). Reported challenges to increasing testing include the complexity of interpreting the resulting genetic data (79%), the level of funding and complexity of commissioning (67%), the limited capacity of current processes and cross-disciplinary relationships (38%), and workforce education (29%). CONCLUSIONS: Priorities to address include the development and evaluation of models of increasing access to gene testing, the optimal process for interpretation of large-scale genetic data, implementation of appropriate commissioning and funding processes, and achieving national consistency. The UK cancer genetics community have high expertise and strong commitment to maximising scientific advances for improved patient benefit and should be pivotally involved in the implementation of increased cancer gene testing.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.021
Research integrity0.0150.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations45
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207