MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623410148 · doi:10.1182/blood-2017-03-735654

The NCI Genomic Data Commons as an engine for precision medicine

2017· review· en· W2623410148 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Jensen, Vincent Ferretti, Robert L. Grossman, Louis M. Staudt

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsPrecision medicineBig dataGenomicsCancerData sharingGenomeComputational biologyCommonsGenomic informationPersonalized medicineGenomic medicineBioinformaticsData scienceMedicineComputer scienceBiologyData miningGeneticsGeneAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Cancer Institute Genomic Data Commons (GDC) is an information system for storing, analyzing, and sharing genomic and clinical data from patients with cancer. The recent high-throughput sequencing of cancer genomes and transcriptomes has produced a big data problem that precludes many cancer biologists and oncologists from gleaning knowledge from these data regarding the nature of malignant processes and the relationship between tumor genomic profiles and treatment response. The GDC aims to democratize access to cancer genomic data and to foster the sharing of these data to promote precision medicine approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations337
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207