MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405070300 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31120572

Canadian Consensus Recommendations for Predictive Biomarker Testing in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

2024· review· en· W4405070300 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christine Brezden‐Masley, Pierre Fiset, Carol C. Cheung, Thomas Arnason, Justin Bateman, Martin Borduas, Gertruda Evaristo, Diana Beşliu-Ionescu, Howard J. Lim, Brandon S. Sheffield, Sara V. Soldera, Catherine Streutker

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreWilliam Osler Health SystemQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversity Health NetworkMcGill University Health CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomarkerAdenocarcinomaOncologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastric cancer is common globally and has a generally poor prognosis with a low 5-year survival rate. Targeted therapies and immunotherapies have improved the treatment landscape, providing more options for efficacious treatment. The use of these therapies requires predictive biomarker testing to identify patients who can benefit from their use. New therapies on the horizon, such as CLDN18.2 monoclonal antibody therapy, require laboratories to implement new biomarker tests. A multidisciplinary pan-Canadian expert working group was convened to develop guidance for pathologists and oncologists on the implementation of CLDN18.2 IHC testing for gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma in Canada, as well as general recommendations to optimize predictive biomarker testing in G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. The expert working group recommendations highlight the importance of reflex testing for HER2, MMR and/or MSI, CLDN18, and PD-L1 in all patients at first diagnosis of G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Testing for NTRK fusions may also be included in reflex testing or requested by the treating clinician when third-line therapy is being considered. The expert working group also made recommendations for pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic considerations for predictive biomarker testing in G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Implementation of these recommendations will provide medical oncologists with accurate, timely biomarker results to use for treatment decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207