MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954420975 · doi:10.1007/s12253-019-00685-2

Methods for Identifying Patients with Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase (TRK) Fusion Cancer

2019· review· en· W2954420975 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek Wong, Stephen Yip, Poul H. Sorensen

Bibliographic record

VenuePathology & Oncology Research · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBC Cancer FoundationBayer HealthCare
KeywordsTrk receptorTropomyosinFusion geneFusion proteinTargeted therapyTropomyosin receptor kinase CCancer researchGeneKinaseCancerBiologyReceptorMedicineInternal medicineRecombinant DNABiochemistryNeurotrophin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NTRK gene fusions affecting the tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) protein family have been found to be oncogenic drivers in a broad range of cancers. Small molecule inhibitors targeting TRK activity, such as the recently Food and Drug Administration-approved agent larotrectinib (Vitrakvi®), have shown promising efficacy and safety data in the treatment of patients with TRK fusion cancers. NTRK gene fusions can be detected using several different approaches, including fluorescent in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, immunohistochemistry, next-generation sequencing, and ribonucleic acid-based multiplexed assays. Identifying patients with cancers that harbor NTRK gene fusions will optimize treatment outcomes by providing targeted precision therapy.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.637
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathology & Oncology ResearchSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207