The democratization of cancer screening, or a waste of valuable resources?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) prompted many scientists and companies to apply this new technology for cancer diagnostics. One valuable application of ctDNA is in the screening for cancer. This procedure has been coined "liquid biopsy" and unlike classical biopsy, is minimally invasive. This technology can be used to detect one, a few or several cancers, hopefully at an early, treatable stage. There is considerable debate on the ability of this technology to efficiently detect small, localized tumors since the amount of ctDNA in the circulation is miniscule, potentially leading to many false negatives. Additionally, the false positive rate is concerning, especially for low prevalence tumors. Here, we provide an update and underline important issues that need to be addressed before this technology enters the clinic. Due to substantial financial rewards of successful companies and the prospective large investment of public healthcare resources, scientists have the responsibility to thoroughly validate these technologies and make sure that these tests not only detect cancer, but they also trigger actionable interventions that improve patient survival and/or quality of life.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".