MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366144498 · doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2023.03.007

Cancer driver mutations: predictions and reality

2023· review· en· W4366144498 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Molecular Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's University
KeywordsCancerCarcinogenesisMutationBiologyIdentification (biology)Cancer researchGeneticsComputational biologyBioinformaticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer cells accumulate many genetic alterations throughout their lifetime, but only a few of them drive cancer progression, termed driver mutations. Driver mutations may vary between cancer types and patients, can remain latent for a long time and become drivers at particular cancer stages, or may drive oncogenesis only in conjunction with other mutations. The high mutational, biochemical, and histological tumor heterogeneity makes driver mutation identification very challenging. In this review we summarize recent efforts to identify driver mutations in cancer and annotate their effects. We underline the success of computational methods to predict driver mutations in finding novel cancer biomarkers, including in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). We also report on the boundaries of their applicability in clinical research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.338 · 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