MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137825255 · doi:10.1002/hep4.1692

Experimental Models of Liquid Biopsy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Reveal Clone‐Dependent Release of Circulating Tumor DNA

2021· article· en· W3137825255 on OpenAlexaff
Ismaïl Labgaa, Johann von Felden, Amanda J. Craig, Sebastião N. Martins-Filho, Carlos Villacorta-Martín, Nicolas Demartines, Olivier Dormond, Delia D’Avola, Augusto Villanueva

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfU.S. Department of DefenseSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Cancer InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaLiquid biopsyclone (Java method)DNACirculating tumor DNAPathologyCancer researchChemistryBiologyMedicineCancerInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid biopsy, the molecular analysis of tumor components released into the bloodstream, has emerged as a noninvasive and resourceful means to access genomic information from cancers. Most data derived from translational studies showcase its numerous potential clinical applications. However, data from experimental models are scarce, and little is known about the underlying mechanisms and factors controlling the release of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and cells (CTCs). This study aimed to model liquid biopsy in hepatocellular carcinoma xenografts and to study the dynamics of release of ctDNA and CTCs; this included models of intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) and metastatic disease. We quantified ctDNA by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting human long interspersed nuclear element group 1; targeted mutation analysis was performed with digital droplet PCR. CTCs were traced by flow cytometry. Results demonstrated the feasibility of detecting ctDNA, including clone‐specific mutations, as well as CTCs in blood samples of mice. In addition, the concentration of ctDNA and presence of tumor‐specific mutations reflected tumor progression, and detection of CTCs was associated with metastases. Our ITH model suggested differences in the release of DNA fragments impacted by the cell‐clone origin and the treatment. Conclusion: These data present new models to study liquid biopsy and its underlying mechanisms and highlighted a clone‐dependent release of ctDNA into the bloodstream.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatology CommunicationsSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207