MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110496394 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-1593

Utility of Incorporating Genetic Variants for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer

2009· article· en· W2110496394 on OpenAlexaff
Robert K. Nam, William Zhang, John Trachtenberg, Arun Seth, Laurence Klotz, Aleksandra Stanimirovic, Sanoj Punnen, Vasundara Venkateswaran, Ants Toi, D.A. Loblaw, Linda Sugar, Katherine Siminovitch, Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsProstate cancerRectal examinationNomogramMedicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismProstate biopsyOncologyOdds ratioProstateGenotypeConfidence intervalInternal medicineCancerProstate-specific antigenSNPGenotypingBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) have been associated with the risk of prostate cancer. The clinical utility of using SNPs in the early detection of prostate cancer has not been evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We examined a panel of 25 SNPs from candidate genes and chromosomal regions in 3,004 unselected men who were screened for prostate cancer using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination. All underwent a prostate biopsy. We evaluated the ability of these SNPs to help predict the presence of prostate cancer at biopsy. RESULTS: Of the 3,004 patients, 1,389 (46.2%) were found to have prostate cancer. Fifteen of the 25 SNPs studied were significantly associated with prostate cancer (P=0.02-7x10(-8)). We selected a combination of 4 SNPs with the best predictive value for further study. After adjusting for other predictive factors, the odds ratio for patients with all four of the variant genotypes compared with men with no variant genotype was 5.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-16.5; P=0.006). When incorporated into a nomogram, genotype status contributed more significantly than PSA, family history, ethnicity, urinary symptoms, and digital rectal examination (area under the curve=0.74). The positive predictive value of the PSA test ranged from 42% to 94% depending on the number of variant genotypes carried (P=1x10(-15)). CONCLUSIONS: SNP genotyping can be used in a clinical setting for the early detection of prostate cancer in a nomogram approach and by improving the positive predictive value of the PSA test.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207