MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561575791 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2015-4621

Abstract 4621: Validation and calibration of next-generation sequencing to identify Epstein-Barr Virus-positive gastric cancer

2015· article· en· W2561575791 on OpenAlexaff
M. Constanza Camargo, Reanne Bowlby, Andy Chu, Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu, Vésteinn Thórsson, Sandra Elmore, Andrew J. Mungall, Adam J. Bass, Margaret L. Gulley, Charles S. Rabkin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCancerExome sequencingConcordanceEpstein–Barr virusDNA sequencingMicrosatellite instabilityComparative genomic hybridizationGenomeIn situ hybridizationPolymerase chain reactionVirusVirologyGeneticsMutationGeneMicrosatelliteGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Gastric adenocarcinoma was recently classified by a large genomic study into four molecular subtypes, including one defined by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positivity. EBV infection in tumors is conventionally assessed by in situ hybridization (ISH), but detection of viral nucleic acids by next-generation sequencing represents a potential alternative. Methods: Normalized EBV read counts were determined by whole genome, whole exome, mRNA and miRNA sequencing for 295 fresh-frozen gastric tumor samples. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections were retrieved for ISH confirmation of 13 high-EBV and 11 low-EBV cases selected at random. Results: By each sequencing method, numbers of EBV reads were bimodally distributed across tumors, with a minority having much higher counts. In pairwise comparisons, individual samples were either consistently high or consistently low by all genomic methods for which data were available. Empiric cut-offs based on molecular data of 1000 normalized reads for whole genome, 100 for exome, 4 for mRNA and 5000 for miRNA had perfect concordance identifying 26 (9%) tumors as EBV-positive. One sample tested by ISH lacked tumor cells. For the 23 tumors with EBV status determined by both approaches, EBV-positivity or -negativity by molecular testing was confirmed by EBER-ISH in all but one case (kappa = 0.91). The exception was a microsatellite instability-type cancer EBV-negative by both mRNA and miRNA sequencing, with equivocally positive ISH interpretation. Conclusions: EBV-positive gastric tumors may be accurately identified by quantifying viral sequences in genomic data. Simultaneous analyses of human and viral DNA, mRNA and miRNA could streamline tumor profiling for clinical care and research. Citation Format: M. Constanza Camargo, Reanne Bowlby, Andy Chu, Chandra S. Pedamallu, Vesteinn Thorsson, Sandra Elmore, Andrew Mungall, Adam Bass, Margaret L. Gulley, Charles S. Rabkin. Validation and calibration of next-generation sequencing to identify Epstein-Barr Virus-positive gastric cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 4621. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-4621

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207