Abstract 2226: International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) is one of most ambitious biomedical research efforts since the Human Genome Project. The ICGC is coordinating an international-scale research effort to obtain a comprehensive description of genomic, transcriptomic and epigenomic changes in the major forms of cancer. This information will lead to better ways of diagnosing, treating and preventing cancer. The ICGC was launched in April 2008, with the announcement of the proposed strategies and policies to the international scientific community to enable funding agencies and research groups to plan their participation within the ICGC. As of December 2009, the ICGC has received commitments from funding organizations in Asia, Australia, Europe and North America for the following cancer genome projects: breast cancer, Her2+ (France); breast cancer, multiple subtypes (United Kingdom); chronic lymphocytic leukemia (Spain); gastric adenocarcinoma (China), hepatocellular carcinoma, alcohol and associated etiologies (France); pediatric brain cancers - medulloblastoma and pilocytic astrocytoma (Germany); hepatocellular carcinoma, viral etiologies (Japan); oral cavity cancer (India), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (Australia and Canada). Furthermore, the latest call for proposals published in the Health Theme of the European Union's 7th Research Framework Programme includes a research topic to support European participation in the ICGC. The ICGC projects will complement a large US-based pilot project called The Cancer Genome Atlas, which oversees projects related to glioblastoma multiforme, squamous carcinoma and serous adenocarcinoma. Over time, additional nations and organizations Each project is expected to involve specimens from approximately 500 patients. Over the next ten years, the ICGC expects to produce comprehensive catalogues of the full range of genetic mutations involved in 50 types of cancer, with key factors being the ability to detect all mutated cancer genes, data at the level of individual DNA bases, application of common standards for pathology and technology and comparison data from matched, non-tumour tissue. The ICGC's informed consent and ethical oversight policies state that cancer patients enrolled in an ICGC-related study should be informed that their participation is voluntary, that their clinical care will not be affected by their participation and that data obtained from analyses using their samples will be made available to the international research community. ICGC projects will use common standards of data collection and analysis. The ICGC will make its data rapidly and freely available to the global research community. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2226.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.036 |
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".