MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012400686 · doi:10.1002/cjp2.159

Post‐mortem tissue donation programs as platforms to accelerate cancer research

2020· review· en· W3012400686 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Dankner, Badia Issa‐Chergui, Nathaniel Bouganim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pathology Clinical Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOccupational Cancer Research CentreMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTissue DonationMedicineDonationCancerIntensive care medicineDiseaseSurgeryTransplantationPathologyInternal medicineOrgan donation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given recent advances in the treatment of cancer, patients are surviving longer but frequently develop treatment-resistant and inoperable metastases. Biomedical research has advanced to the stage where in-depth study of these lesions is feasible, with the goal of further refining our understanding of metastatic dissemination, therapeutic resistance and inoperable tumors. However, there is a lack of tissue specimens derived from multiple metastatic sites within the same patient that would permit the study of these processes. Furthermore, patients with rapidly progressing or metastatic disease are rarely candidates for surgery, making those most in need of innovation and discovery extremely difficult to study. For this reason, post-mortem tissue donation programs are an approach that is quickly gaining traction in the cancer research community. Herein, we discuss what post-mortem tissue donation entails, attitudes towards these procedures, and highlight important studies already utilizing these resources. In addition, we propose future directions for use of this tissue that can directly improve clinical management of advanced cancer patients.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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 venueThe Journal of Pathology Clinical ResearchSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207