MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FISH and Chips: Novel, Point of Care Technology To Detect Chromosomal Abnormalities.

2006· article· en· W2560285798 on OpenAlexaff
Carina S. Debes Marun, Vincent J. Sieben, Patrick M. Pilarski, Tony Reiman, Andrew R. Belch, C. Backhouse, Linda M. Pilarski

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluorescence in situ hybridizationChromosomal translocationMicrofluidicsChromosomeComputational biologyMicrofluidic chipBiologyComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnologyGeneticsMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is widely used as a diagnostic tool for known genetic abnormalities due to its sensitivity for detection of cryptic aberrations, such as t(4;14)(p16;q32) in multiple myeloma (MM). In many cancers, chromosomal abnormalities are prognostic indicators that also predict response to therapy. Tests to determine the type and extent of these abnormalities are increasingly essential for more informed diagnosis and choice of treatment strategies. However the cost and complexity of the current FISH protocols, and the variability arising from differences in technical approach and subjective evaluation of hybridization patterns has compromised its widespread utilization. To create a standardized platform that will be accurate, robust, cost-effective and easy to use in any clinical setting, we have developed a microfluidic platform that enables simultaneous assessment of 10 chromosomal abnormalities or 10 patients, on a single chip. Microfluidic chips are hybrid polymer/glass microsystems with miniaturized networks of wells and channels, incorporating valves, heaters and fluidic control. The 10 channel microfluidic chip used here is the size of a microscope slide. Each channel requires only 1/10 the amount of probe used in conventional FISH, thus substantially reducing the cost per test. All the probes tested gave comparable results to conventional testing. Three cell lines and three ex-vivo PBMC samples from MM patients were tested against four different chromosomal probe sets, to detect translocation (4:14), any 14q32 translocation, deletion of chromosome 13 or deletion of p53. We used a mixture of patient sample and cell line to test the robustness of our technology and were able to successfully distinguish abnormal patterns with percentages that were comparable to FISH on microscope slides. On-chip FISH was highly reliable with consistent results in multiple test runs. To automate the process of reading slide, a computer vision algorithm was developed to provide a quantitative and objective measure of staining patterns, and to eventually eliminate the requirement for human intervention. This strategy uses artificial intelligence to distinguish probe from background staining, to identify and quantify the number of cells with different chromosomal patterns. This visual processing algorithm has been validated against human interpretation and provides a sensitive and unbiased method to distinguish signal and noise within stained cells. Although reliable and reproducible hybridization occurred in as little as four hours, to further reduce the time required for FISH testing, methods to enhance the hybridization were examined. These included chip designs that implemented mechanical or electrokinetic pumping. Both methods improved the hybridization and are currently being optimized. On-chip FISH appears to be versatile, fast and inexpensive, making fully automated FISH testing a possibility. Compared to conventional methods, these first iterations of on-chip FISH provide a 10-fold higher throughput and a 10 fold reduction in the cost of testing. On-chip FISH technology holds promise for sophisticated and cost-effective screening of cancer patients at every clinic visit in any health care setting, thus facilitating the delivery of personalized cancer care targeted to the genetic characteristics of each individual. Funded by CIHR, NSERC and Western Economic Diversification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207