MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low-intensity focused ultrasound with systemic microbubble oscillators for blood-brain barrier disruption for liquid biopsy in glioblastoma (LIBERATE).

2023· article· en· W4379283577 on OpenAlexaff
Manmeet S. Ahluwalia, Michael McDermott, Terry C. Burns, John Frederick De Groot, John Y. K. Lee, Alon Y. Mogilner, Theodore H. Schwartz, Bhavya Shah, Chetan Bettegowda, Ahmad Ozair, Atulya Aman Khosla, Arjun Sahgal, Mark V. Mishra, Achal S. Achrol, Nir Lipsman, Graeme F. Woodworth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicrobubblesBiopsyLiquid biopsyBrain tumorRadiologyBiomarkerUltrasoundPathologyOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS2084 Background: Liquid biopsy in glioblastoma (GBM) is hindered by a lack of requisite circulating-free DNA (cfDNA) levels in blood due to the blood-brain barrier (BBB). This results in challenges to the identification of blood-based biomarkers and the development of novel biomarker-driven systemic therapies. Real-time image-guided low intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) combined with IV microbubble oscillators (DEFINITY), non-invasively causes BBB disruption (BBBD). This clinical trial aims to evaluate the utility of LIFU for increasing cfDNA in blood for liquid biopsy in GBM. Methods: LIBERATE is a prospective, multi-center, self-controlled, ongoing, pivotal trial evaluating safety and technical efficacy of LIFU for BBBD to increase cfDNA in blood for GBM. Patients aged >18-80 years with suspected GBM planned for tumor biopsy or resection at eleven centers in North America are being included. Patients with multifocal tumors or tumors arising from deep midline, thalamus, cerebellum, or brainstem are excluded. Patients are administered IV oscillating microbubbles for enhancing sonication, after which MR-guided BBBD using a 220 kHz LIFU device is performed with real-time acoustic feedback for effective cavitation. Before and after procedure, phlebotomies and MRI brain are performed to evaluate outcomes. The primary study endpoint is defined, per subject, as the ratio between their cfDNA level in blood 1-hour post-LIFU compared to cfDNA level in blood pre-procedure. The primary study hypothesis is that BBBD with LIFU leads to ≥2-fold increase in cfDNA in blood. The secondary hypothesis is that there exists ≥75% agreement between biomarker pattern in cfDNA sample from 1-hour post-LIFU sample and biomarker pattern in tumor tissue obtained later. The trial has been powered to evaluate both primary and secondary hypotheses. Based on an assumed true agreement rate of 91% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025, an exact test for binomial proportions provides a sample of N=50 with 84% power for the secondary hypothesis. Exploratory endpoints include (1) sensitivity of detection of known somatic mutations in cfDNA from blood samples collected before and after LIFU, (2) estimation of cfDNA levels post-LIFU in samples collected at 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hour, and 3 hour to determine time of greatest yield, (3) correlation of MRI parameters related to grading of BBBD and biomarkers positive in cfDNA from post-LIFU blood samples. Patient enrollment commenced in 2022 and 7 patients have been recruited by 02/13/2023. Clinical trial information: 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207