MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084860251 · doi:10.1017/s1460396920000746

A review of clinical and emerging biomarkers for breast cancers: towards precision medicine for patients

2020· review· en· W3084860251 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ernest Osei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiotherapy in Practice · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphGrand River HospitalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMalignancyDiseasePrecision medicineOncologyCancerInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy among women and accounts for about 25% of all new cancer cases and 13% of all cancer deaths in Canadian women. It is a highly heterogeneous disease, encompassing multiple tumour entities, each characterised by distinct morphology, behaviour and clinical implications. Moreover, different breast tumour subtypes have different risk factors, clinical presentation, histopathological features, outcome and response to systemic therapies. Therefore, any strategies capable of the stratification of breast cancer by clinically relevant subtypes are an important requirement for personalised and targeted treatment. Therefore, in the advancement towards the concept of precision medicine that takes individual patient variability into account, several investigators have focused on the identification of effective clinical breast cancer biomarkers that interrogate key aberrant pathways potentially targetable with molecular targeted or immunological therapies. Methods and materials: This paper reports on a review of 11 current clinical and emerging biomarkers used in screening for early detection and diagnosis, to stratify patients by disease subtype, to identify patients’ risk for metastatic disease and subsequent relapse, to monitor patient response to specific treatment and to provide clinicians the possibility of prospectively identifying groups of patients who will benefit from a particular treatment. Conclusion: The future holds promising for the use of effective clinical breast cancer biomarkers for early detection and personalised patient-specific targeted treatment and increased patient survival. Breast cancer biomarkers can potentially assist in early-staged, non-invasive, sensitive and specific breast cancer detection and screening, provide clinically useful information for identification of patients with a greater likelihood of benefiting from the specific treatment, offer a better understanding of the metastatic process in cancer patients, predict disease and for patients with the established disease can assist define the nature of the disease, monitor the success of treatment and guide the clinical management of the disease.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.417 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiotherapy in PracticeSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207