MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943567636 · doi:10.3747/co.26.4731

A Canadian Guideline on the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology

2019· article· en· W2943567636 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stephen Yip, Anna Christofides, Shantanu Banerji, Michelle R. Downes, Iyare Izevbaye, Bernard Lo, A. MacMillan, Jeanna McCuaig, Tracy Stockley, George M. Yousef, Alan Spatz

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Alberta HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreAlberta Hospital EdmontonImpactFluidigm (Canada)
FundersFoundation MedicineF. Hoffmann-La RocheAstraZenecaPfizer
KeywordsMedicineDECIPHERGuidelineDNA sequencingGenomicsMedical physicsClinical trialClinical OncologyGenomic sequencingComputational biologyBioinformaticsCancerInternal medicinePathologyGenomeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid advancements in next-generation sequencing (ngs) technology have created an unprecedented opportunity to decipher the molecular profile of tumours to more effectively prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer. Oncologists now have the option to order molecular tests that can guide treatment decisions. However, to date, most oncologists have received limited training in genomics, and they are now faced with the challenge of understanding how such tests and their interpretation align with patient management. Guidance on how to effectively use ngs technology is therefore needed to aid oncologists in applying the results of genomic tests. The Canadian guideline presented here describes best practices and unmet needs related to ngs-based testing for somatic variants in oncology, including clinical application, assay and sample selection, bioinformatics and interpretation of reports performed by laboratories, patient communication, and clinical trials.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207