MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401976889 · doi:10.26685/urncst.599

Rising Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma: A Narrative Review

2024· review· en· W4401976889 on OpenAlexaff
Anaïs Miners, Lyndon Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple myelomaNarrativeMedicineNarrative reviewInternal medicineIntensive care medicineLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Multiple Myeloma, a rare and historically deemed untreatable blood cancer, continues to pose a significant health challenge. While the standard of care for multiple myeloma involves managing symptoms long term, there is a growing interest in new modalities of diagnosing and characterizing the disease. Biomarkers, measurable substances in a patient, play a dual role, not only in monitoring the disease but also in the diagnostic process, offering valuable insight into the nature of the cancer. Methods: This narrative review evaluated studies published to large academic databases through the utilization of filtering Medical Subjects Headings (MESH) terms pertaining to the topic of multiple myeloma biomarkers. Specific biomarkers and their significance to the development of an understanding of multiple myeloma will be identified and categorized by feasibility of use, taking into account current data and available detection techniques. Results: Both traditionally utilized and novel biomarkers for multiple myeloma were included in this study. Literature pertaining to six biomarkers of interest was reviewed: M Protein, immunoglobulin free light chain (FLC), Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and the utilization of bone lesion imaging. M-Protein still remains the gold standard for diagnosing multiple myeloma, but other liquid biopsy measurements (FLC, LDH, ctDNA, cfDNA) and imaging evaluations have become crucial in diagnosing, treating, and understanding the heterogeneity of the disease. Discussion: These biomarkers have shown to improve the diagnostic and prognostic process of cancer treatment by identifying and measuring patient attributes. As ongoing research endeavors continue to unveil the mechanisms and prevalence of various biomarkers in multiple myeloma, there is an opportunity for refinement and standardization of international guidelines for managing MM patients. Biomarker implementation into the standards of care gives rise to the opportunity of reducing variability between studies and optimizing personalized patient care. Conclusion: Biomarkers in multiple myeloma is a rapidly advancing field of translational science which is influencing daily clinical decision making. Further studies need to be done to limit variability in biomarker standards as well as to broaden our understanding of the correlations between biomarkers and disease progression.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→