MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394849857 · doi:10.5376/cge.2024.14.0005

The Application and Challenges of Emerging Technologies in Early Diagnosis and Screening of Gastric Cancer: From Molecular Markers to Imaging Advances

2024· article· en· W4394849857 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anita Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Genetics and Epigenetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerMedicineComputational biologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study comprehensively elucidates the application and challenges of emerging technologies in the early diagnosis and screening of gastric cancer, focusing on the latest developments from molecular biomarkers to imaging techniques. It aims to provide a comprehensive perspective for researchers in the field of early gastric cancer diagnosis, aiding in understanding and evaluating the application and challenges of these technologies. The study systematically introduces the importance of early diagnosis of gastric cancer and the limitations of traditional diagnostic methods. It delves into the application of molecular biomarkers in early gastric cancer diagnosis, including the latest discovered biomarkers and their current clinical applications. Furthermore, the study analyzes the application of genomics and proteomics technologies and their potential in diagnosing gastric cancer. Additionally, it emphasizes the role of the latest imaging technologies such as PET/CT and MRI in gastric cancer screening. The study acknowledges that despite the immense potential of these emerging technologies, they still face multiple challenges in specificity and sensitivity, cost and accessibility, complexity in data processing, and the need for clinical validation and standardization. Finally, the authors propose future research directions, including improving the specificity and sensitivity of biomarkers, reducing the cost of technologies, enhancing the application of artificial intelligence in data processing, and strengthening clinical trials and standardization of emerging technologies.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Genetics and EpigeneticsSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207