MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512650232 · doi:10.1111/iju.13193

Recent progress with next‐generation biomarkers in muscle‐invasive bladder cancer

2016· review· en· W2512650232 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Contreras‐Sanz, Morgan E. Roberts, Roland Seiler, Peter C. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerCystectomyLiquid biopsyPathologicalBiopsyDiseaseCancerMuscle biopsyOncologyBioinformaticsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer is a heterogeneous disease with different clinical phenotypes. Histomorphological variants, variable mutation rates and aberrant protein expression, along with the recently identified molecular subtypes, have been linked to prognosis and response to therapy. Complete response to chemotherapy and outcome after radical cystectomy are difficult to predict. To date, no validated pathological or clinical test exists to predict response. Advances in high-throughput, next-generation, genomic techniques to study the molecular pathways that govern the disease have led to novel strategies for the identification of such biomarkers relevant to muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Progress has been made not only in tissue-based biomarkers, but also in the liquid biopsy field. Liquid biopsies represent an opportunity to obtain patient samples non-invasively at multiple time-points during their treatment course without the need for biopsy. Especially in the metastatic setting, this will allow monitoring of the molecular evolution of the tumor under treatment, which should inform subsequent therapeutic decisions.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207