MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318719042 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000279

Clonality of localized and metastatic prostate cancer

2016· review· en· W2318719042 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul C. Boutros, Michael Fraser, Theodorus van der Kwast, Robert G. Bristow

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineTumour heterogeneityProstate biopsyBiopsyProstateGenetic heterogeneityComputational biologyCancerPrecision medicineMutationMetastasisPathologyBioinformaticsGeneInternal medicineGeneticsPhenotypeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The influence of the long life-history of prostate cancer on the temporal and spatial variability of the tumour genome is now being elucidated. Multiregion sequencing to identify spatio-genomic differences in prostate tumour mutation profiles combined with computational approaches can map the evolution and transit of tumour cells throughout an individual patient. RECENT FINDINGS: A series of recent studies have demonstrated that a prostate tumour is often composed of different subclones, with varying genetic similarity. As such, a single biopsy specimen may be insufficient to make accurate clinical predictions from molecular biomarkers, greatly complicating the application of biopsy-based tools for precision medicine. In addition, subclones that arise outside of the primary tumour can seed new metastases and circulate between sites within a patient. SUMMARY: The mutational complexity of multiple tumour clones within the same individual, which respond differently to specific treatments, suggests the need for multimodal interventions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207