MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949891844 · doi:10.1101/044024

Implementing rapid, robust, cost-effective, patient-centred, routine genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients

2016· preprint· en· W2949891844 on OpenAlexaff
Angela George, Daniel Riddell, Sheila Seal, Sabrina Talukdar, Shazia Mahamdallie, Elise Ruark, Victoria Cloke, Ingrid Slade, Zoe Kemp, Martin Gore, Ann Strydom, Susana Banerjee, Helen Hanson, Nazneen Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsGenetic testingOvarian cancerMedicineBRCA mutationOncologyGermline mutationGenetic counselingCancerBioinformaticsGynecologyInternal medicineMutationGeneGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Background: Advances in DNA sequencing have made gene testing fast and affordable, but adaptation of clinical services to capitalise on this for patient benefit has been slow. Ovarian cancer exemplifies limitations of current systems and potential benefits of increased gene testing. Approximately 15% of ovarian cancer patients have a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (collectively termed ‘BRCA’) and this has substantial implications for their personal management and that of their relatives. However, in most countries implementation of BRCA testing in ovarian cancer has been inconsistent and largely unsuccessful. Methods: We developed a mainstream pathway in which BRCA testing was undertaken by cancer team members after 30 minutes online training. Patients with a mutation were sent a genetic appointment with their results. Cascade testing to relatives was performed via standard clinical genetic procedures. Findings: 207 women with ovarian cancer were offered gene testing through the mainstream pathway and all accepted. 33 (16%) had a BRCA mutation. The result informed management of 79% (121/154) women with active disease including 97% (32/33) women with a mutation. All mutation-positive women and ~3.5 relatives per family have been seen in genetics. Patient and clinician feedback was very positive. >95% found the pathway to be simple and effective. The pathway offers considerable reduction in time (~5-fold) and resource requirements (~13-fold) compared to the traditional genetic pathway. We estimate it would deliver £2.6M NHS cost savings per year, and would allow implementation of national testing recommendations with existing infrastructure. Interpretation: Mainstream genetic testing is effective, efficient and patient-centred and offers a mechanism for large-scale implementation of BRCA gene testing in cancer patients. The principles could be applied in many other countries and to many other areas of genomic medicine.

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)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicBRCA gene mutations in cancer→French-language works237,207→