MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Analytical Characteristics of Commercial and in-House Methods for DNA Isolation from Paraffin Histology Blocks

2017· article· en· W2582820373 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. А. Oskina, A. M Avdalyan, Д. В. Субботин, Alexandr Lazarev, А Э Кель, Н. Е. Кушлинский, М. Л. Филипенко

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA extractionDNASomatic cellMolecular biologyMedicinePolymerase chain reactionPathologyBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the hotspots in clinical research today is molecular genetic analysis of structural DNA alterations. Working with DNA obtained from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens is particularly challenging, due to cross-linking and fragmentation of DNA. We performed a comparative analysis of DNA extraction methods from FFPE tissue using two in-house protocols and Qiagen (QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit) and Roche (High Pure FFPET DNA Isolation Kit) commercial kits presented in the Russian market and used in clinical practice. To assess the quantity and quality of the isolated DNA, we used the real-time PCR to rate DNA yield, the inhibited impurity content and the degree of fragmentation. Our findings may be useful for a medical laboratory that performs testing of somatic mutations for the targeted therapy selection, and researchers who specialized in tumor genome structure studies in respect to patient prognosis and prediction of the sensitivity or resistance of tumor cells to therapy.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207