The side effects of translational omics: overtesting, overdiagnosis, overtreatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput technologies such as next-generation genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics are capable of generating massive amounts of data quickly, and at relatively low costs. It is tempting to use this data for various medical applications including preclinical disease detection and for prediction of disease predisposition. Pilot projects, initiated by various research groups and Google, are currently underway, but results with not be available for a few years. We here summarize some possible difficulties with these approaches, by using examples from already tried cancer and other screening programs. Population screening, especially with multiparametric algorithms, will identify at least some false positive parameters and screening programs will identify abnormal results in otherwise healthy individuals. Whole genome sequencing will identify genetic changes of unknown significance and may not predict accurately future disease predisposition if the disease is also influenced by environmental factors. In screening programs, if the disease is rare, the positive predictive value of the test will be low, even if the test has excellent sensitivity and specificity. False positive results may require invasive procedures to delineate. Furthermore, screening programs are not effective if the cancer grows quickly, and will identify indolent forms of the disease with slow-growing tumors. It has also been recently shown that for some cancers, more intensive and radical treatments do not usually lead to better clinical outcomes. We conclude that new omics testing technologies should avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment and need to be evaluated for overall clinical benefit before introduction to the clinic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".