MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554180340 · doi:10.1038/srep36814

Assessment of pathological response to therapy using lipid mass spectrometry imaging

2016· article· en· W2554180340 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan Heath Patterson, Balqis Alabdulkarim, Anthoula Lazaris, Aurélien Thomas, Mieczysław Marcinkiewicz, Zu‐Hua Gao, Peter Vermeulen, Pierre Chaurand, Peter Metrakos

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsPathologicalMedicineMass spectrometry imagingLipidomeChemotherapyColorectal cancerMetastasisPathologyCancerOncologyRadiologyInternal medicineMass spectrometryLipid metabolismChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many cancers, the establishment of a patient's future treatment regime often relies on histopathological assessment of tumor tissue specimens in order to determine the extent of the 'pathological response' to a given therapy. However, histopathological assessment of pathological response remains subjective. Here we use MALDI mass spectrometry imaging to generate lipid signatures from colorectal cancer liver metastasis specimens resected from patients preoperatively treated with chemotherapy. Using these signatures we obtained a unique pathological response score that correlates with prognosis. In addition, we identify single lipid moieties that are overexpressed in different histopathological features of the tumor, which have potential as new biomarkers for assessing response to therapy. These data show that computational methods, focusing on the lipidome, can be used to determine prognostic markers for response to chemotherapy and may potentially improve risk assessment and patient care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

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

Citations47
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207