DNA Quantity and Quality Comparisons between Cryopreserved and FFPE Tumors from Matched Pan-Cancer Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized cancer care requires molecular characterization of neoplasms. While the research community accepts frozen tissues as the gold standard analyte for molecular assays, the source of tissue for testing in clinical cancer care comes almost universally from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE). As newer technologies emerge for DNA characterization that requires higher molecular weight DNA, it was necessary to compare the quality of DNA in terms of DNA length between FFPE and cryopreserved samples. We hypothesized that cryopreserved samples would yield higher quantity and superior quality DNA compared to FFPE samples. We analyzed DNA metrics by performing a head-to-head comparison between FFPE and cryopreserved samples from 38 human tumors representing various cancer types. DNA quantity and purity were measured by UV spectrophotometry, and DNA from cryopreserved tissue demonstrated a 4.2-fold increase in DNA yield per mg of tissue (p-value < 0.001). DNA quality was measured on a fragment microelectrophoresis analyzer, and again, DNA from cryopreserved tissue demonstrated a 223% increase in the DNA quality number and a 9-fold increase in DNA fragments > 40,000 bp (p-value < 0.0001). DNA from the cryopreserved tissues was superior to the DNA from FFPE samples in terms of DNA yield and quality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".