MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339963131 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153844

Single-Patient Molecular Testing with NanoString nCounter Data Using a Reference-Based Strategy for Batch Effect Correction

2016· article· en· W2339963131 on OpenAlexafffund
Aline Talhouk, Stefan Kommoss, Robertson Mackenzie, Martin Cheung, Samuel Leung, Derek S. Chiu, Steve E. Kalloger, David G. Huntsman, Stephanie Chen, Maria P. Intermaggio, Jacek Gronwald, Fong Chun Chan, Susan J. Ramus, Christian Steidl, David W. Scott, Michael S. Anglesio

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer AgencyBC Centre for Disease ControlPancreas Centre (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Computational biologyBioinformaticsMedical physicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major weakness in many high-throughput genomic studies is the lack of consideration of a clinical environment where one patient at a time must be evaluated. We examined generalizable and platform-specific sources of variation from NanoString gene expression data on both ovarian cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma patients. A reference-based strategy, applicable to single-patient molecular testing is proposed for batch effect correction. The proposed protocol improved performance in an established Hodgkin lymphoma classifier, reducing batch-to-batch misclassification while retaining accuracy and precision. We suggest this strategy may facilitate development of NanoString and similar molecular assays by accelerating prospective validation and clinical uptake of relevant diagnostics.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207