MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411416517 · doi:10.3390/ijms26125839

Refined Procedure to Purify and Sequence Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Prostate Cancer

2025· article· en· W4411416517 on OpenAlexaff
Samira Rahimirad, Seta Derderian, Lucie Hamel, Eleonora Scarlata, Ginette McKercher, Fadi Brimo, Raghu Rajan, Alexis Rompré‐Brodeur, Wassim Kassouf, Rafael Sanchez‐Salas, Armen Aprikian, Simone Chevalier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerDNACell-free fetal DNASequence (biology)Computational biologyCancerBiologyProstateCancer researchMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA), a fragmented DNA circulating in blood, is a promising biomarker for cancer diagnosis and monitoring. Standardization of cfDNA isolation to enhance the sensitivity of molecular analyses in prostate cancer (PCa) is required. Towards this goal, we optimized existing methods to obtain a high quantity and quality of cfDNA from low volumes of plasma. The protocol was applied to samples from healthy males and three patient categories: radical prostatectomy (RP), disease-free (>6 years post-RP), and metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). The yield was significantly higher in mCRPC cases, and the size of fragments was shorter. We compared for the first time library preparation using two cfDNA inputs and low vs. high sequencing depth. Clonal events were observed irrespective of input and depth, but lower input showed more subclonal events. The clinical application of the refined protocols to cfDNA samples from an mCRPC patient showed no tumor fraction before RP, while it increased to 25% at the advanced stage. Among chromosomal changes and mutations, the androgen receptor gene amplification was detected. Altogether, this comprehensive study on improved cfDNA procedures is highly promising to enhance the quality of liquid biopsy-based research for discoveries and much-needed clinical applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207