Developing a new diagnostic algorithm for human papilloma virus associated oropharyngeal carcinoma: An investigation of HPV DNA assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papilloma virus (HPV) has been implicated in the development of a large proportion of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Current techniques used to diagnose HPV etiology require histopathologic analysis. We aim to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a new application non-histopathologic diagnostic tests to help assist diagnosis of HPV-related oropharyngeal tumors. METHODS: Patients with OPSCC with nodal metastasis were consecutively recruited from a multidisciplinary cancer clinic. Appropriate samples were collected and analyzed. The various tests examined included COBAS® 4800, Cervista® HR and Genotyping. These tests were compared to p16 staining, which was used as the diagnostic standard. StataIC 14.2 was used to perform analysis, including sensitivity, specificity and receiver operator characteristic [ROC] curves. RESULTS: The COBAS® FNA (area under ROC 0.863) and saliva (area under ROC 0.847) samples performed well in diagnosing HPV positive and negative tumors. Samples tested with Cervista® did not corroborate p16 status reliably. We were able to increase the diagnostic yield of the COBAS® FNA samples by applying the results of the saliva test to negative FNA samples which correctly identified 11 additional p16 positive tumors (area under ROC 0.915). CONCLUSION: Surrogate testing for HPV using alternate methods is feasible and closely predicts the results of standard diagnostic methods. In the future, these could minimize invasive procedures for diagnosing HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, but also help to diagnose and treat patients with unknown primaries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".