MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200381606 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.767697

Patient-Derived Explants as a Precision Medicine Patient-Proximal Testing Platform Informing Cancer Management

2021· review· en· W4200381606 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Abby R. Templeton, Penny L. Jeffery, Patrick B. Thomas, Mahasha P. J. Perera, Gary Ng, Alivia R. Calabrese, Clarissa Nicholls, Nathan J. Mackenzie, Jack R. Wood, Laura J. Bray, Ian Vela, Erik W. Thompson, Elizabeth D. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerAustralian GovernmentCancer AustraliaPA Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePrecision medicinePersonalized medicineCancerLongevityPatient careBioinformaticsMedical physicsComputational biologyInternal medicinePathologyBiologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precision medicine approaches that inform clinical management of individuals with cancer are progressively advancing. Patient-derived explants (PDEs) provide a patient-proximal ex vivo platform that can be used to assess sensitivity to standard of care (SOC) therapies and novel agents. PDEs have several advantages as a patient-proximal model compared to current preclinical models, as they maintain the phenotype and microenvironment of the individual tumor. However, the longevity of PDEs is not compatible with the timeframe required to incorporate candidate therapeutic options identified by whole exome sequencing (WES) of the patient’s tumor. This review investigates how PDE longevity varies across tumor streams and how this is influenced by tissue preparation. Improving longevity of PDEs will enable individualized therapeutics testing, and thus contribute to improving outcomes for people with cancer.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207