MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121745450 · doi:10.1016/j.molonc.2008.07.004

Biobanking for better healthcare

2008· review· en· W2121745450 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Oncology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsGenome Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiobankCancerCurranTranslational researchMedicineHealth careFamily medicineLibrary scienceInternal medicinePolitical scienceBioinformaticsPathologyBiologyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Translational cancer research is highly dependent of large series of cases including high quality samples and their associated data. Comprehensive Cancer Centers should be involved in networks to enable large-scale multi-center research projects between the centers [Ringborg, U., de Valeriola, D., van Harten, W., Llombart-Bosch, A., Lombardo, C., Nilsson, K., Philip, T., Pierotti, M.A., Riegman, P., Saghatchian, M., Storme, G., Tursz, T., Verellen, D, 2008. Improvement of European translational cancer research. Collaboration between comprehensive cancer centers. Tumori 94, 143-146.]. Combating cancer knows many frontiers. Research is needed for prevention as well as better care for those who have acquired the disease. This implies that human samples for cancer research need to be sourced from distinct forms of biobanking. An easier access to these samples for the scientific community is considered as the main bottleneck for research for health, and biobanks are the most adequate site to try to resolve this issue [Ozols, R.F., Herbst, R.S., Colson, Y.L., Gralow, J., Bonner, J., Curran Jr., W.J., Eisenberg, B.L., Ganz, P.A., Kramer, B.S., Kris, M.G., Markman, M., Mayer, R.J., Raghavan, D., Reaman, G.H., Sawaya, R., Schilsky, R.L., Schuchter, L.M., Sweetenham, J.W., Vahdat, L.T., Winn, R.J., and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2007. Clinical cancer advances 2006: major research advances in cancer treatment, prevention, and screening: a report from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 146-162.]. However, biobanks should not be considered a static activity. On the contrary, biobanking is a young discipline [Morente, M.M., Fernandez, P.L., de Alava, E. Biobanking: old activity or young discipline? Semin. Diagn. Pathol., in press.], which need continuously evolve according to the permanent development of new techniques and new scientific goals. To accomplish current requirements of the scientific community biobanks need to face some essential challenges including an appropriate design, harmonized and more suitable procedures, and sustainability, all of them in the framework of their ethic, legal and social dimensions. This review therefore presents an overview on these issues, based on the works and discussions of the Marble Arch International Working Group on Biobanking for Biomedical Research, integrated by experts in biobanking from five continents.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.330 · 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