MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Blood-based biomarkers for detecting aggressive prostate cancer at time of biopsy

2006· article· en· W2966212079 on OpenAlexaff
R. Nam, K. Wayne Marshall, Rongyuan Zheng, H. W. Zhang, Steven A. Narod, C.C. Liew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineBiopsyCancerStage (stratigraphy)ProstateProstate biopsyOncologyPCA3Internal medicinePathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4637 Background: To date, we have applied our unique methodology (the Sentinel Principle) to identify blood-based gene expressed biomarkers for several diseases including osteoarthritis, bladder cancer and psychiatric disorders. It is well known that new biomarkers for prostate cancer detection are needed, particularly aggressive forms of prostate cancer. Our objective was to identify gene expression signatures and to characterize a set of biomarkers from whole blood to identify patients with aggressive forms of prostate cancer at the time of prostate biopsy. Methods: We conducted a two staged study. The first stage was for gene discovery using microarrays (Affymetrix U133Plus2.0 GeneChips) among 47 patients (all Caucasian) who underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer. We included 16 patients (cases) diagnosed with aggressive forms of prostate cancer defined as having a histologic grade of Gleason Score 7 or more and 31 patients with no evidence of cancer at biopsy (controls). The second stage was a validation study (108 patients) using real-time RT-PCR methods. Logistic regression was used to assess the ability of linear combinations of specific transcripts to distinguish cancers from controls. Results: In the first stage, we identified 1661 probes that were significantly different in blood gene expression profiles between cases and controls (p<0.05). In the second stage, real-time RT-PCR assays validated four genes among 33 cases and 75 controls: three up-regulated genes: A 1.4 fold, p<0.001, B 1.2 fold, p=0.03, C 1.3 fold, p=0.08; and one down-regulated gene D 0.70, p=0.008. Linear combination of these 4 genes discriminated the cases from controls with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 53% (AUC: 0.80, 95% C.I.: 0.713∼0.871). The performance of PSA (4 ng/ml cut-off) in the same 108 sample set was 91% sensitivity and 13% specificity (AUC: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.75∼0.98). The performance of combining the four blood biomarkers with PSA yielded an AUC of 0.86 (95% C.I.: 0.77∼0.91) with a sensitivity 90% and specificity 70%. Conclusions: When used with PSA, these four blood-based biomarkers improved the overall accuracy to identify patients with prostate cancer at biopsy. These results would have important implications for new biomarkers discovery for prostate cancer detection. [Table: see text]

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→