MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of plasma miR-371a-3p expression in patients with metastatic and early stage germ cell tumor.

2019· article· en· W2921579584 on OpenAlexaff
Lucia Nappi, Marisa Thi, Amy Lum, David G. Huntsman, Bernhard J. Eigl, Kim N., Christopher Martin, Brock O Neil, Benjamin L. Maughan, Alan So, Peter C. Black, Martin Gleave, Alexander W. Wyatt, Jean‐Michel Lavoie, Daniel Khalaf, Siamak Daneshmand, Robert J. Hamilton, Ricardo Leão, Craig R. Nichols, Christian Kollmannsberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortOncologyInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Chemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

526 Background: Identification of relapsing/residual viable germ cell malignancy (GCM) is often challenging in patients with CSI on surveillance or with residual post-chemotherapy disease. The presence of a biomarker for GCM would overcome the uncertainty of the current methods and improve the quality of care of those patients. Methods: A 2-cohorts pilot study involving patients with clearcut evidence of GCM (clinical stage IS, metastatic and GCM prior orchiectomy) for the development cohort and patients with CSI with or without signs of tumor relapse and patients with metastatic GCM post-chemotherapy for the validation cohort. Blood samples collected in Streck tubes were obtained prior to chemotherapy for the development cohort and post-orchiectomy, at the time of suspicious relapse or post-chemotherapy in the validation cohort. Plasma miR-371a-3p (miR371) was analyzed by RT-PCR. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive values (NPV) and AUC of the ROC for miR371 and standard diagnostic tools (CT scan, AFP, BHCG and LDH) were calculated correlating qualitative miR371 expression to the presence of viable GCM. Results: 132 patients were enrolled into the development (33 pts) and validation (99 pts) cohorts. Within the development cohort 31/33 pts were miR371 positive, 2/33 pts were negative. 31 true positives were found among the 31 miR371 positive patients for a PPV of 100% (31/31). Two true negatives were found among the 2 patients who had no miR371 expression identified (teratoma, lymphoma). The validation cohort was chosen to evaluate the methodology among patients with predicted lower volumes or no clinically apparent disease. 13/99 patients within the validation cohort were miR371 positive and all 13 had subsequent confirmation of viable GCM. For the overall study of 132 pts, PPV was 100% (46/46), NPV 98%, sensitivity 96% and specificity 100%, the AUC of the ROC was 0.96. Conclusions: Detectable circulating miR-371a-3p levels predict viable GCM and may represent a strategy for biological rather than radiographic assessment for surveillance of early stage and for post-treatment patients. Larger studies to validate these and like results have been planned.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→