MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390687486 · doi:10.48083/eabm2528

Urinary Tumor DNA-Based Diagnosis and Surveillance for Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer—Current Landscape and Future Directions

2023· article· en· W4390687486 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexander L. Shiang, Cayce Nawaf, Pradeep S. Chauhan, Aadel A. Chaudhuri, Zachary L. Smith, Gautum Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystoscopyMedicineBladder cancerUrinary systemIntensive care medicineBiomarkerCancerOncologyUrinary bladderUrologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bladder cancer has a significant impact on patients, in terms of both morbidity and financial burden. This is especially true for patients with nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer, who undergo long-term surveillance via cystoscopy and imaging, resulting in significant costs and risks. To address this issue, urinary tumor DNA analysis, or “urinary liquid biopsy,” has emerged as a potential solution to reduce the testing burden and mitigate many of the costs and risks. Over time, urinary tumor DNA analysis has undergone several refinements. However, existing FDA-approved urinary biomarker assays currently lack the sensitivity and specificity to significantly impact clinical decision-making. Subsequent iterations of these technologies have attempted to bridge this gap by improving their diagnostic accuracy, and ultimately, clinical utility. Here, we discuss the current role as well as future directions of urinary tumor DNA analysis for the detection and long-term surveillance of nonmuscle-invasive bladder 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207