MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785240241 · doi:10.3233/blc-170140

Liquid Biopsy-Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Bladder Cancer

2018· review· en· W2785240241 on OpenAlexaff
Tilman Todenhöfer, Werner J. Struss, Roland Seiler, Alexander W. Wyatt, Peter C. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueBladder Cancer · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquid biopsyBladder cancerCirculating tumor DNADNABiopsyMedicinePathologyCancer researchOncologyCancerInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in DNA profiling techniques have enabled sensitive detection of tumor-associated genomic aberrations in peripheral blood. This type of minimally-invasive molecular interrogation has the potential to guide subsequent treatment selection. The potential utility of ctDNA in bladder cancer (BC) is bolstered by the high somatic mutation rate, meaning that very small numbers of genes or target regions can be informative. First reports indicate that analysis of ctDNA may represent a sensitive method for disease surveillance in patients with different stages of BC. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that ctDNA analysis reveals previously unknown genomic alterations in metastatic patients. Since some of these gene alterations represent therapeutic targets, ctDNA analysis provides an attractive tool to guide individualized therapy in BC.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations56
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBladder CancerSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207