MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313312265 · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000003126

Urinary Analysis of <i>FGFR3</i> and <i>TERT</i> Gene Mutations Enhances Performance of Cxbladder Tests and Improves Patient Risk Stratification

2022· article· en· W4313312265 on OpenAlexaff
Yair Lotan, Jay D. Raman, Badrinath R. Konety, Siamak Daneshmand, Florian R. Schroeck, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Peter C. Black, Michel de Lange, Scott Asroff, Evan R. Goldfischer, Mitchell Efros, Kian Tai Chong, Eugene Huang, Hong Liang Chua, Qing Wu, Siying Yeow, Weida Lau, Jin Hua Yong, M Eng

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk stratificationStratification (seeds)Urinary systemGeneOncologyInternal medicineGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: genes, in addition to the current 5 mRNA biomarkers and clinical risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two multicenter, prospective studies were undertaken in: (1) U.S. patients with gross hematuria aged ≥18 years and (2) Singaporean patients with gross hematuria or microhematuria aged >21 years. All patients provided a midstream urine sample and underwent cystoscopy. Samples were retrospectively analyzed using enhanced Cxbladder-Triage (risk stratifies patients), enhanced Cxbladder-Detect (risk stratifies patients and detects positive patients), and the combination enhanced Cxbladder-Triage × Cxbladder-Detect. RESULTS: < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study in ethnically diverse patients with hematuria showed the analytical validity of the enhanced Cxbladder tests.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207