MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386618747 · doi:10.3791/65804

Biobanking of Human Aqueous and Vitreous Liquid Biopsies for Molecular Analyses

2023· article· en· W4386618747 on OpenAlexaff
Julian Wolf, Teja Chemudupati, Aarushi Kumar, Ditte K. Rasmussen, Karen M. Wai, Robert T. Chang, Artis A. Montague, Peter H. Tang, Alexander G. Bassuk, Antoine Dufour, Prithvi Mruthrunjaya, Vinit B. Mahajan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SLundbeckfondenNational Eye InstituteVitreoRetinal Surgery FoundationResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsWorkflowBiobankComputer scienceBarcodeInterface (matter)Identification (biology)Medical physicsComputational biologyBioinformaticsDatabaseMedicineBiologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical challenge in translational research is establishing a viable and efficient interface between patient care in the operating room (OR) and the research laboratory. Here, we developed a protocol for acquiring high-quality liquid biopsies for molecular analyses from the aqueous humor and the vitreous from patients undergoing eye surgery. In this workflow, a Mobile Operating Room Lab Interface (MORLI) cart equipped with a computer, a barcode scanner, and lab instruments, including onboard cold storage, is used to obtain and archive human biological samples. A web-based data privacy-compliant database enables annotating each sample over its lifetime, and a cartesian coordinate system allows tracking each barcoded specimen in storage, enabling quick and accurate retrieval of samples for downstream analyses. Molecular characterization of human tissue samples not only serves as a diagnostic tool (e.g., to distinguish between infectious endophthalmitis and other non-infectious intraocular inflammation) but also represents an important component of translational research, allowing the identification of new drug targets, development of new diagnostic tools, and personalized therapeutics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.451 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207