Analysis of Pre-Analytic Factors Affecting the Success of Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing of Solid Organ Malignancies
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
Application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology to routine clinical practice has enabled characterization of personalized cancer genomes to identify patients likely to have a response to targeted therapy. The proper selection of tumor sample for downstream NGS based mutational analysis is critical to generate accurate results and to guide therapeutic intervention. However, multiple pre-analytic factors come into play in determining the success of NGS testing. In this review, we discuss pre-analytic requirements for AmpliSeq PCR-based sequencing using Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM) (Life Technologies), a NGS sequencing platform that is often used by clinical laboratories for sequencing solid tumors because of its low input DNA requirement from formalin fixed and paraffin embedded tissue. The success of NGS mutational analysis is affected not only by the input DNA quantity but also by several other factors, including the specimen type, the DNA quality, and the tumor cellularity. Here, we review tissue requirements for solid tumor NGS based mutational analysis, including procedure types, tissue types, tumor volume and fraction, decalcification, and treatment effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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