MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Data from Detecting Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer Through Tissue-Informed Cell-Free DNA Methylation Analysis

2023· preprint· en· W4361954301 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacob E. Berchuck, Sylvan C. Baca, Heather M. McClure, Keegan Korthauer, Harrison Tsai, Pier Vitale Nuzzo, Kaitlin M. Kelleher, Monica He, John A. Steinharter, Soumya Zacharia, Sándor Spisák, Ji-Heui Seo, Vincenza Conteduca, Olivier Elemento, Joonghoon Auh, Michael Sigouros, Eva Corey, Michelle S. Hirsch, Mary‐Ellen Taplin, Toni K. Choueiri, Mark M. Pomerantz, Himisha Beltran, Matthew L. Freedman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Prostate Cancer ResearchLucas FoundationPharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America FoundationDana-Farber Cancer InstituteNational Cancer InstituteProstate Cancer FoundationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsProstate cancerDNA methylationBiologyMethylated DNA immunoprecipitationInternal medicineMedicineCancerGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractPurpose: Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is a resistance phenotype that emerges in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate adenocarcinoma (CR-PRAD) and has important clinical implications, but is challenging to detect in practice. Herein, we report a novel tissue–informed epigenetic approach to noninvasively detect NEPC. Experimental Design: We first performed methylated immunoprecipitation and high-throughput sequencing (MeDIP-seq) on a training set of tumors, identified differentially methylated regions between NEPC and CR-PRAD, and built a model to predict the presence of NEPC (termed NEPC Risk Score). We then performed MeDIP-seq on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from two independent cohorts of men with NEPC or CR-PRAD and assessed the accuracy of the model to predict the presence NEPC. Results: The test cohort comprised cfDNA samples from 48 men, 9 with NEPC and 39 with CR-PRAD. NEPC Risk Scores were significantly higher in men with NEPC than CR-PRAD (P = 4.3 × 10–7) and discriminated between NEPC and CR-PRAD with high accuracy (AUROC 0.96). The optimal NEPC Risk Score cutoff demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity for detecting NEPC. The independent, multi-institutional validation cohort included cfDNA from 53 men, including 12 with NEPC and 41 with CR-PRAD. NEPC Risk Scores were significantly higher in men with NEPC than CR-PRAD (P = 7.5×10–12) and perfectly discriminated NEPC from CR-PRAD (AUROC 1.0). Applying the predefined NEPC Risk Score cutoff to the validation cohort resulted in 100% sensitivity and 95% specificity for detecting NEPC. Conclusions: Tissue-informed cfDNA methylation analysis is a promising approach for noninvasive detection of NEPC in men with advanced prostate cancer.

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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→