MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482079801 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2016-5277

Abstract 5277: The cBioPortal for cancer genomics and its application in precision oncology

2016· article· en· W2482079801 on OpenAlexaff
Jianjiong Gao, James Lindsay, Stuart Watt, Istemi Bahceci, Pieter Lukasse, Adam Abeshouse, Hsiao‐Wei Chen, Ino de Bruijn, Benjamin Groß, Dong Li, Ritika Kundra, Zachary Heins, Jorge S. Reis‐Filho, Onur Sumer, Yichao Sun, Jiaojiao Wang, Qingguo Wang, Hongxin Zhang, Priti Kumari, Merve Şahin, Sander de Ridder, Fedde Schaeffer, Kees van Bochove, Uğur Doğrusöz, Trevor J. Pugh, Chris Sander, Ethan Cerami, Nikolaus Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationSoftwarePipeline (software)Computer scienceData scienceTimelineGenomicsVisualizationMedicineData miningGenomeBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics provides intuitive visualization and analysis of complex cancer genomics data. The public site (http://cbioportal.org/) is accessed by more than 1,500 researchers per day, and there are now dozens of local instances of the software that host private data sets at cancer centers around the globe. We have recently released the software under an open source license, making it free to use and modify by anybody. The software and detailed documentation are available at https://github.com/cBioPortal/cbioportal. We are now establishing a multi-institutional software development network, which will coordinate and drive the future development of the software and associated data pipelines. This group will focus on four main areas: 1. New analysis and visualization features, including: a. Improved support for cross-cancer queries and cohort comparisons. b. Enhanced clinical decision support for precision oncology, including an improved patient view with knowledge base integration, patient timelines and improved tools for visualizing tumor evolution. 2. New data pipelines, including support for new genomic data types and streamlined pipelines for TCGA and the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). 3. Software architecture and performance improvements. 4. Community engagement: Documentation, user support, and training. This coordinated effort will help to further establish the cBioPortal as the software of choice in cancer genomics research, both in academia and the pharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, as the sequencing of tumor samples has entered clinical practice, we are expanding the features of the software so that it can be used for precision medicine at cancer centers. In particular, clean, web-accessible, interactive clinical reports integrating multiple sources of genome variation and clinical annotation over time has potential to improve clinical action beyond current text-based molecular reports. By making complex genomic data easily interpretable and linking it to information about drugs and clinical trials, the cBioPortal software has the potential to facilitate the use of genomic data in clinical decision making. Citation Format: Jianjiong Gao, James Lindsay, Stuart Watt, Istemi Bahceci, Pieter Lukasse, Adam Abeshouse, Hsiao-Wei Chen, Ino de Bruijn, Benjamin Gross, Dong Li, Ritika Kundra, Zachary Heins, Jorge Reis-Filho, Onur Sumer, Yichao Sun, Jiaojiao Wang, Qingguo Wang, Hongxin Zhang, Priti Kumari, M. Furkan Sahin, Sander de Ridder, Fedde Schaeffer, Kees van Bochove, Ugur Dogrusoz, Trevor Pugh, Chris Sander, Ethan Cerami, Nikolaus Schultz. The cBioPortal for cancer genomics and its application in precision oncology. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 5277.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207