MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231028818 · doi:10.1155/2013/501284

Automated Quantification of DNA Aneuploidy by Image Cytometry as an Adjunct for the Cytologic Diagnosis of Malignant Effusion

2013· article· en· W4231028818 on OpenAlexaff
Zhilan Meng, Jie Shi, Chenyan Zhu, Jiangang Gu, Chen Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Cellular Pathology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAneuploidyCytologyPathologyEffusionCytometryBiologyMedicineFlow cytometryMolecular biologySurgeryChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA aneuploidy is a cancer biomarker, which may have a potential diagnostic value in body effusion specimen. DNA aneuploidy is determined by measuring the DNA content of tested cells and comparing them with diploid cells (2c). In order to assess the value of automated DNA image cytometry (DNA-ICM) in the cytologic diagnosis of effusion, we measured DNA ploidy using an automated DNA-ICM analysis system in 126 consecutive effusion specimens and followed the cases for histologic diagnosis. Half of each effusion specimen was used to prepare cytologic smears for conventional cytologic diagnosis, while the other half was used to prepare a monolayer slide stained by Feulgen stain for automated ICM. By using Youden index, we found that 4 cells exceeding 2.5c is the optimal cut off value for aneuploidy, which has a sensitivity of 88.3% and specificity of 100% for diagnosis of malignant effusion. We also found that the DNA aneuploidy thresholds used for other types of cytologic specimens cannot be used in the diagnosis of effusion specimens. Our study demonstrated that automated DNA image cytometry is a simple, practical and cost-effective method for adjunct diagnosis of malignant effusion.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical Cellular PathologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207