MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Multimodal biomarkers overcome sampling bias to predict presence of aggressive localized prostate cancer.

2021· article· en· W3135309578 on OpenAlexafffund
David M. Berman, Anna YW Lee, Robert Lesurf, Palak Patel, Walead Ebrahimizadeh, Jane Bayani, Nadia Boufaied, Tamara Jamaspishvili, Karl‐Philippe Guérard, Dan Dion, Laura A Lee, Vasundara Venkateswaran, Simone Chevalier, Fadi Brimo, Ralph Buttyan, Axel A. Thomson, Paul C. Park, Jacques Lapointe, Paul C. Boutros, John M.S. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchMcGill UniversityQueen's University
FundersProstate Cancer Canada
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatectomyCohortBiopsyProstateGrading (engineering)OncologyBiochemical recurrenceConfoundingInternal medicinePathologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

209 Background: Histopathologic investigation of diagnostic prostate biopsies both confirms the presence of disease and estimates its potential for distal spread via tumour grade. The accuracy of biopsy grading is limited by intra-tumoral heterogeneity, inter-observer variability, and other factors. To improve risk stratification at the time of diagnosis, we sought to create objective molecular biomarkers of radical prostatectomy grade that are resistant to sampling error and should be useful when applied to biopsy tissue. Methods: We developed and validated a robust objective biomarker of prostate cancer grade using pathologic grading of prostatectomy tissues as the gold standard. We created training (333 patients) and validation (202 patients) cohorts of Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. To address intra-tumoral heterogeneity, each tumor was sampled at two locations. We profiled the abundance of 342 mRNAs complemented by 100 canonical DNA copy number aberration loci (CNAs) and 14 hypermethylation events. Using the training cohort with cross-validation, we evaluated models for training classifiers of pathologic Grade Group ≥2, Restricting to strategies resulting in true negative rates ≥0.5, true positive (TP) rates ≥0.8, we selected two strategies to train classifiers, PRONTO-e and PRONTO-m. Results: The PRONTO-e classifier comprises 353 mRNA and CNA features, while the PRONTO-m classifier comprises 94 mRNA, CNA, methylation and clinical features. Both classifiers (PRONTO-e, PRONTO-m) validated in the independent cohort, with respective TP rates of 0.809 and 0.760, false positive rates of 0.429 and 0.262, F1 scores of 0.709 and 0.724, and AUCs of 0.792 and 0.818. Conclusions: Two classifiers were developed and validated in separate cohorts, each achieved excellent performance by integrating different types of molecular data. Implementation of classifiers with these performance characteristics could markedly improve current active surveillance approaches without increasing patient morbidity and may help better inform patients on their individual need for definitive therapy versus active surveillance.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research→French-language works237,207→