MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918882770 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-0586

A Study of Pre-Analytical Variables and Optimization of Extraction Method for Circulating Tumor DNA Measurements by Digital Droplet PCR

2019· article· en· W2918882770 on OpenAlexaff
Luca Cavallone, Mohammed Aldamry, Josiane Lafleur, Cathy Lan, Pablo Gonzalez Ginestet, Najmeh Alirezaie, Cristiano Ferrario, Adriana Aguilar‐Mahecha, Mark Basik

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation CentreJewish General HospitalMcGill University
FundersÉcole des Mines de Nantes
KeywordsDigital polymerase chain reactionCirculating tumor DNADNA extractionCirculating tumor cellCentrifugationBlood collectionMedicineOncologyCancerComputational biologyPolymerase chain reactionBiologyInternal medicineChromatographyGeneChemistryGeneticsMetastasisEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) is an exciting novel method to diagnose, monitor, and predict resistance and response to cancer therapies, with the potential to radically alter the management of cancer patients. To fulfill its potential, greater knowledge about preanalytical variables is required to optimize and standardize the collection process, and maximize the yield and utility of the small quantities of cfDNA extracted. METHODS: To this end, we have compared the cfDNA extraction efficiency of three different protocols, including a protocol developed in house (Jewish General Hospital). We evaluated the impact on cfDNA levels of preanalytical variables including speed and timing of the second centrifugation and the use of k-EDTA and CTAD blood collection tubes. Finally, we analyzed the impact on fractional abundance of targeted pre-amplification and whole genome amplification on tumor and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with breast cancer. RESULTS: Making use of a novel protocol for cfDNA extraction we increased cfDNA quantities, up to double that of commercial kits. We found that a second centrifugation at 3,000 g on frozen plasma is as efficient as a high-speed (16,000 g) centrifugation on fresh plasma and does not affect cfDNA levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results allow for the implementation of protocols more suitable to the clinical setting. Finally, we found that, unlike targeted gene amplification, whole genome amplification resulted in altered fractional abundance of selected ctDNA variants. IMPACT: Our study of the preanalytical variables affecting cfDNA recovery and testing will significantly enhance the quality and application of ctDNA testing in clinical oncology.

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 score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207