Liquid Biopsy for Spinal Tumors: On the Frontiers of Clinical Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to provide a narrative review of the current state of research for liquid biopsy in spinal tumors and to discuss the potential application of liquid biopsy in the clinical management of patients with spinal tumors. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, and the review was limited to articles of English language. All the relevant articles which were identified to be related to liquid biomarker study in spinal tumors, were studied in full text. RESULTS: Liquid biopsy has revolutionized the field of precision medicine by guiding personalized clinical management of cancer patients based on the liquid biomarker status. In recent years, more research has been done to investigate its potential utilization in patients with tumors from the spine. Herein, we review the liquid biomarkers that have been proposed in different spine malignancies including chordoma, chondrosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, osteosarcoma, astrocytoma and ependymoma. We also discuss the wide window of opportunity to utilize these liquid biomarkers in diagnosis, treatment response, monitoring, and detection of minimal residual disease in patients with spinal tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Liquid biomarkers, especially blood-derived circulating tumor DNA, has a promising clinical utility as they are disease-specific, minimally invasive, and the procedure is repeatable. Prospective studies with larger populations are needed to fully establish its use in the setting of spinal tumors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".