4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Development of biomarker positivity analysis system for cancer diagnosis based on clinical data

期刊

BIO-MEDICAL MATERIALS AND ENGINEERING
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 S2101-S2111

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BME-151516

关键词

Cancer; biomarker; clinical data; positive rate

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [2010-0028631]
  2. Korean Health Technology R & D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A110742]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Korea, there were 224,000 new cases of cancer and 75,334 deaths caused by cancer in 2013, which was three times more than the number of death caused by heart disease, the second leading cause of death. This study proposes a biomarker positivity analysis system based on clinical data, for personalized diagnosis and therapy of cancer. Data of 78,912 cases were obtained from immunopathology and surgical pathology reports. Data on sex, age, organ, diagnosis, and biomarkers were entered into a database. To verify the reliability of the clinical data, an additional 50,450 cases from positivity-related research papers were added. The proposed biomarker positivity analysis system makes it possible to extract and combine information for searching. The positivity values are in graphical and tabular format for ease of use. With a link to the internal network of the hospital, real-time pathology reports are available. Twenty-five pathology specialists are chosen as subjects to further confirm the reliability of this system; primary assessment results demonstrate a satisfaction level of 4.7 out of 5 and a concordance rate of 79% with positive data under the same conditions as reported in the literature. In the present study, analysis methods and platforms using large volumes of clinical and literature data are developed for cancer prognoses. It is expected that these tools will benefit both healthcare professionals and non-professionals involved in cancer diagnosis and treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据