MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092125507 · doi:10.1002/pbc.28758

Considerations for the use of circulating tumor DNA sequencing as a screening tool in cancer predisposition syndromes

2020· article· en· W3092125507 on OpenAlexafffund
Sangeetha Paramathas, Tanya Guha, Trevor J. Pugh, David Malkin, Anita Villani

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCancerLiquid biopsyCirculating tumor DNACancer detectionMolecular diagnosticsDiseaseStage (stratigraphy)DNA sequencingOncologyInternal medicineBioinformaticsDNAGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid biopsy, specifically circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection, has started to revolutionize the clinical management of patients with cancer by surpassing many limitations of traditional tissue biopsies, particularly for serial testing. ctDNA sequencing has been successfully utilized for cancer detection, prognostication, and assessment of disease response and evolution. While the applications of ctDNA analysis are growing, the majority of studies to date have primarily evaluated its use as a tool for tracking a known cancer, and in most cases at advanced stage. Herein, we discuss the potential application of ctDNA for surveillance and early cancer detection in patients with a cancer predisposition syndrome.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207