MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313403243 · doi:10.1002/pbc.30130

Tumor biology, biomarkers, and liquid biopsy in pediatric renal tumors

2023· review· en· W4313403243 on OpenAlexaff
Amy L. Walz, Mariana Maschietto, Brian D. Crompton, Nicholas F. Evageliou, David Dix, Manfred Gessler, David Gisselsson, Najat C. Daw, Jenny Wegert

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
FundersUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicineLiquid biopsyWilms' tumorBiopsyPathologyOncologyInternal medicineBioinformaticsCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expansion of knowledge regarding driver mutations for Wilms tumor (WT) and malignant rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (MRT) and various translocations for other pediatric renal tumors opens up new possibilities for diagnosis and treatment. In addition, there are growing data surrounding prognostic factors that can be used to stratify WT treatment to improve outcomes. Here, we review the molecular landscape of WT and other pediatric renal tumors as well as WT prognostic factors. We also review incorporation of circulating tumor DNA/liquid biopsies to leverage this molecular landscape, with potential use in the future for distinguishing renal tumors at the time of diagnosis and elucidating intratumor heterogeneity, which is not well evaluated with standard biopsies. Incorporation of liquid biopsies will require longitudinal collection of multiple biospecimens. Further preclinical research, identification and validation of biomarkers, molecular studies, and data sharing among investigators are crucial to inform therapeutic strategies that improve patient outcomes.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207