MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309016113 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noac209.311

CTNI-46. PIVOTAL STUDY TO EVALUATE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF EXABLATE MODEL 4000 USING MICROBUBBLE RESONATORS TO TEMPORARILY MEDIATE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER DISRUPTION FOR LIQUID BIOPSY IN GLIOBLASTOMA (LIBERATE)

2022· article· en· W4309016113 on OpenAlexaff
Manmeet S. Ahluwalia, John de Groot, Alon Y. Mogilner, Theodore H. Schwartz, Terry C. Burns, Bhavya Shah, Michael McDermott, Chetan Bettegowda, Atulya Aman Khosla, Arjun Sahgal, Mark V. Mishra, Achal S. Achrol, Nir Lipsman, Graeme F. Woodworth

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiquid biopsyOncologyBiomarkerSurrogate endpointBiopsyInternal medicineCancerChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Glioblastoma (GBM) has dismal outcome of 14-16 months. One of the challenges of drug development in GBM is lack of requisite circulating-free (cfDNA) in blood samples to develop biomarker driven targeted therapy trials. The Exablate focused ultrasound with circulating microbubble resonators uses the concept of real-time imaging to treat small target spots focusing energy in a non-invasive manner, thereby disrupting the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBBD) with potential to increase cfDNA in blood. METHODS LIBERATE is a prospective, multi-center, self-controlled pivotal ongoing clinical trial in subjects with suspected GBM evaluating the safety and effectiveness of Exablate Model 4000 to disrupt BBB to achieve a greater proportion of cfDNA in samples taken post-BBB disruption as compared to the sample taken before BBBD. Fifty eligible subjects with suspected GBM who are scheduled to undergo brain tumor resection or biopsy at 10 centers in the U.S. will participate in this study. The primary endpoint is defined for each subject as ratio between his/her cfDNA amount found in the blood sample 1-hour post-BBBD procedure compared to the cfDNA amount found in the blood sample collected pre-BBBD procedure. This study proposes to demonstrate that on average there is at least 2-fold increase in cfDNA (measured by central laboratory) at 1 hour post BBBD. Confirmatory secondary analysis will evaluate correlation between patterns obtained in panel of biomarkers evaluated in the resected tumor tissue and/or biopsy sample and blood sample collected 1-hour post-BBBD. Exploratory endpoints will include: (1) sensitivity of detection of known somatic mutations in the circulating blood samples (circulating tumor DNA) before and after BBBD, (2) time of greatest yield of cfDNA in the samples collected post BBBD blood samples (at 30 min, 1-hour, 2-hour and 3-hour) to determine time of greatest yield, (3) correlation of biomarkers between the imaging and the post-BBBD biomarker samples. (NCT05383872)

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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207