MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000548147 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000726

The role of micro-RNAs in management of germ cell tumors: future directions

2020· review· en· W3000548147 on OpenAlexaff
Lucia Nappi, Christian Kollmannsberger, Craig R. Nichols

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerm cell tumorsGerm cellSeminomaMalignancyTeratomaChemotherapyStage (stratigraphy)microRNAOncologyMinimal residual diseaseDiseaseBioinformaticsInternal medicinePathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: miRNAs 371 and 302/367 clusters are abundantly secreted in the blood of patients with active germ cell malignancy (aGCM), both seminoma and nonseminoma. The serum concentration of those micro-RNAs correlates with tumor burden and to the activity of specific treatments; therefore, representing attractive biomarkers for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with germ cell tumors. This review summarizes the most relevant evidence supporting their clinical validity in germ cell tumors. RECENT FINDINGS: Several retrospective studies have reported high sensitivity and specificity of those micro-RNAs in identifying aGCM prior to the orchiectomy or in patients with metastatic germ cell tumor prior to or during chemotherapy. Most recently, few prospective studies have confirmed their clinical validity during the follow-up of patients after surgery and/or chemotherapy. Large studies are panned across the spectrum of germ cell tumors to assess their clinical utility and several efforts to identify biomarkers of teratoma are underway. SUMMARY: The integration of those micro-RNAs in the management of germ cell tumors has the potential to refine the therapeutic decision, especially in some clinical situations characterized by high uncertainty, such as clinical stage I, clinical stage IIA with normal tumor markers and residual disease postchemotherapy.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207