Treatment Algorithms Based on Tumor Molecular Profiling: The Essence of Precision Medicine Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of high-throughput molecular technologies, several precision medicine (PM) studies are currently ongoing that include molecular screening programs and PM clinical trials. Molecular profiling programs establish the molecular profile of patients' tumors with the aim to guide therapy based on identified molecular alterations. The aim of prospective PM clinical trials is to assess the clinical utility of tumor molecular profiling and to determine whether treatment selection based on molecular alterations produces superior outcomes compared with unselected treatment. These trials use treatment algorithms to assign patients to specific targeted therapies based on tumor molecular alterations. These algorithms should be governed by fixed rules to ensure standardization and reproducibility. Here, we summarize key molecular, biological, and technical criteria that, in our view, should be addressed when establishing treatment algorithms based on tumor molecular profiling for PM trials. * CGHa = comparative genomic hybridization array; FISH = fluorescent in situ hybridization; IHC = immunohistochemistry; LC-MS/MS = liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; NGS = next-generation sequencing; PCR = polymerase chain reaction; RPPA = reverse phase protein array; RT-PCR = reverse transcriptase PCR; WES = whole-exome sequencing; WGS = whole-genome sequencing.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".