Seeding metastases: The role and clinical utility of circulating tumour cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral human blood is a readily-accessible source of patient material in which circulating tumour cells (CTCs) can be found. Their isolation and characterization holds the potential to provide prognostic value for various solid cancers. Enumeration of CTCs from blood is becoming a common practice in informing prognosis and may guide therapy decisions. It is further recognized that enumeration alone does not capture perspective on the heterogeneity of tumours and varying functional abilities of the CTCs to interact with the secondary microenvironment. Characterizing the isolated CTCs further, in particular assessing their functional abilities, can track molecular changes in the disease progress. As a step towards identifying a suite of functional features of CTCs that could aid in clinical decisions, developing a CTC isolation technique based on extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions may provide a more solid foundation for isolating the cells of interest. Techniques based on size, charge, density, and single biomarkers are not sufficient as they underutilize other characteristics of cancer cells. The ability of cancer cells to interact with ECM proteins presents an opportunity to utilize their full character in capturing, and also allows assessment of the features that reveal how cells might behave at secondary sites during metastasis. This article will review some common techniques and recent advances in CTC capture technologies. It will further explore the heterogeneity of the CTC population, challenges they experience in their metastatic journey, and the advantages of utilizing an ECM-based platform for CTC capture. Lastly, we will discuss how tailored ECM approaches may present an optimal platform to capture an influential heterogeneous population of CTCs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".