MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213266894 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.230

A231 COLORECTAL CANCER PROVINCIAL SCREENING OPTIMIZATION USING GUT MICROBIOME AS BIOMARKER

2022· article· en· W4213266894 on OpenAlexaffabout
Isabelle Laforest‐Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyColorectal cancerFecal occult bloodMicrobiomeInternal medicineFalse positive paradoxGastroenterologyAdenomaFecesBiomarkerStage (stratigraphy)Colorectal cancer screeningOncologyCancerBioinformaticsBiologyArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease easy to cure but quite difficult to detect. Because of that, the mortality rate of CRC is among the highest in the world. The current way to clinically detect CRC is by mean of immunochromatographic fecal occult blood test (iFOBT). If the test is positive, the patient undergoes a colonoscopy to confirm the presence and stage of CRC. However, iFOBT tests are affected by a high rate of false positives. In addition, colonoscopy preparation and intervention have major drawbacks on patients’ health. It is thus important to reduce the false negative rate of iFOBT. Aims In this study, we aim to find microbiome biomarkers that could reduce the rate of false positives, quantify microbiome composition as CRC worsens, and finally improve iFOBT accuracy by adding microbial biomarkers and CRC-related human genes to the detection for CRC. Methods To do that, 1048 fecal samples were collected with iFOBT kit (OC-Auto® FIT test Kit) then send to the CHUS (Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Sherbrooke). Sex, age and health status (healthy with “no blood”; false positive: FP; adenoma, adenocarcinoma) were collected for 952 samples. Those samples come from healthy patient with “no blood” (no or below 175 ng/mL of blood in sample), FP patients (healthy but with a concentration above 175 ng/mL of blood), 387 patients with adenoma and 52 patients with adenocarcinoma. The community microbial DNA were extracted from samples by using QIAGEN QIAmp Fast DNA stool mini-kit. An amplification of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene were done by using the primers 515 F and 806R, then sequenced on a MiSeq platform. Results First, taxonomy was assigned to each ASV (Amplicon Sequence Variant) with Silva. Then ASVs were parsed through ten different machine learning algorithms to assess if the microbiome can increase the power of prediction (sensitivity and specificity) of CRC by comparing FP vs adenoma and FP vs adenocarcinoma by generating AUC-ROC (Area Under the Curve-Receiver Operating Characteristics) curves using only the sex, age and occult blood concentration, and then adding the ASVs community. Preliminary results show that the power of prediction of CRC with only sex, age and occult blood concentration have an AUC-ROC curves varying between 0.53–61 when comparing FP vs adenoma, and an AUC-ROC curves varying between 0.56–0.74 when comparing FP vs adenocarcinoma. And when adding the community matrix, we see that the AUC-ROC curves comparing FP vs adenoma are varying between 0.48–0.68; and when comparing FP vs adenocarcinoma, the AUC-ROC curves are varying between 0.51–0.98. Conclusions In the future, we hope to explore the possibility of using this machine learning protocol to determine the stage of CRC disease and reduce the need for FP colonoscopies. Funding Agencies CIHRCanada Research Chair

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→