MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Quantifying copy number variations in cell-free DNA for potential clinical utility from a large prostate cancer cohort.

2013· article· en· W2598786376 on OpenAlexaff
Ekkehard Schütz, Mohammad R. Akbari, Julia Beck, Howard B. Urnovitz, William Zhang, William M. Mitchell, Robert K. Nam, Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell-free fetal DNAProstate cancerMedicineCopy-number variationCopy number analysisCancerOncologyProstatePopulationBiomarkerMalignancyInternal medicineBiologyGeneticsGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5072 Background: Prostate cancer (PrCa) is the most frequent non-dermatological malignancy in the male population. Genomic instability resulting in copy number variation (CNV) is a hallmark of malignant transformation. CNV traces from tumors in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) of prostate cancer patients may be identified through massive parallel sequencing (MPS) of serum DNA. These CNV traces may be biomarkers of cancer with clinical applications for screening and follow-up. Methods: DNA was extracted from serum of 205 PrCa patients (Gleason 2 to10), 207 age matched male controls (HC), 10 men with benign hyperplasia (BPH) and 10 with prostatitis (PiS). DNA was amplified using random primers, tagged with a unique molecular identifier per sample, sequenced on a SOLiD system and aligned to the human genome (Build 37). Hits were counted in sliding 100kbp intervals and normalized. Using a random-resampling procedure, genomic regions showing copy number variations in cfDNA that distinguish PrCa from HC were selected. A model using 20 cfDNA regions was cross-validated and used as cfDNA biomarker. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were calculated for assessment of diagnostic performance by means of area under the curve (AUC). Results: To assess whether CNVs in cfDNA are indicative of PrCa, the number of regions with significant CNV deviation was counted in a first subset of 82 PrCa. Using only the number of regions as measure resulted in an AUC of 0.81 (0.7 – 0.9, p<0.001). Therefore, all samples were used to select regions (n=80) in random resampling (50/50). These regions were used to define a highly significant 20-regions model using five rounds of 10-fold cross-validation (AUC: 0.85±0.7; p< 10-7). This final model discriminated between PrCa and HC with an AUC of 0.92 (0.87 – 0.95) reaching a calculated accuracy of 83%. Both BPH and PiS could be distinguished from PrCa using the cfDNA CNV biomarker with a predicted accuracy of 90%. Conclusions: MPS revealed that only a limited number of chromosomal regions showing CNVs are necessary to achieve statistical separation between prostate cancer and controls. This technique may prove to be clinically useful for screening and follow up of men with prostate cancer.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→