Detection of Structural Variants in Circulating Cell-Free DNA from Sarcoma Patients Using Next Generation Sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) analysis using next generation sequencing (NGS) is being implemented in clinical practice for treatment stratification and disease monitoring. However, using ctDNA to detect structural variants, a common occurrence in sarcoma, can be challenging. Here, we use a sarcoma-specific targeted NGS panel to identify translocations and copy number variants in a cohort of 12 tissue specimens and matched circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from soft tissue sarcoma patients, including alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 2), Ewing’s Sarcoma (n = 2), synovial sarcoma (n = 2), extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (n = 1), clear cell sarcoma (n = 1), undifferentiated round cell sarcoma (n = 1), myxoid liposarcoma (n = 1), alveolar soft part cell sarcoma (n = 1) and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (n = 1). Structural variants were detected in 11/12 (91.6%) and 6/12 (50%) of tissue and plasma samples, respectively. Structural variants were detected in cfDNA at variant allele frequencies >0.2% with an average sequencing depth of 1026×. The results from this cohort show clinical potential for using NGS in ctDNA to aid in the diagnosis and clinical monitoring of sarcomas and warrant additional studies in larger cohorts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".