Personalized Medicine in Oncology in the Developing World: Barriers and Concepts to Improve <i>Status Quo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized medicine (PM) has revolutionized oncology management in high human development indexed countries. By interrogating both disease and host factors through a variety of tools, oncologists have been able to better target an individual's cancer, leading to improved outcomes. But both the tools used to define these variables, such as next generation sequencing, large immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) panels, and the weapons employed against each target are extremely expensive. The expenses have to be measured as not only the direct cost to the patient but also the cost to the system to develop and deploy the necessary infrastructure to optimally use them. However, the concepts of predictive, timely prevention and PM have demonstrated improvement in patient's satisfaction and cost effectiveness. In this paper we will summarize the relevant barriers and challenges that limit the implementation of PM in the developing world with an emphasis on the challenges in Nigeria and Nepal. World J Oncol. 2021;12(2-3):50-60 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1345
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".