ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2025
Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Interrater Agreement of Biomarker-Drug Pair Rankings Based on the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) and Sources of Discordance.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking large language models GPT-4o, llama 3.1, and qwen 2.5 for cancer genetic variant classification.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe widespread use of next-generation sequencing in clinical practice has contributed to the accumulation of a large number of genomic findings associated with targeted therapy; therefore, the problem of ranking the detected findings has become acute. The European Society for Medical Oncology Scale of Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) system was designed by the European Society for Medical Oncology to rank biomarkers into levels of evidence that reflect their potency and clinical significance based on published clinical data. However, the ESCAT system remains imperfect, as it is based on a subjective assessment of the levels of evidence.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to determine whether the ranking of LOE for biomarker-drug pairs based on the ESCAT system is dependent on the human factor, and to uncover potential issues associated with the use of the framework.
methodsTo evaluate the inter-rater agreement, we created a dataset of a total of 154 biomarker-drug pairs for 18 unique tumor types. We aimed to include biomarker-drug pairs that could be considered standard of care as well as less common and under investigated pairs. Fourteen precision oncology experts were invited to assign an ESCAT level of evidence for biomarker-drug pairs. Statistical analysis was carried out using Cohen's kappa and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
resultsThe inter-rater agreement was low with some exceptions, and significant deviations from the consensus level of evidence were observed. For biomarker-drug associations, the deviations from the consensus were observed for more than 50% of the contributors' rankings. The most agreement between the contributors was observed for lung adenocarcinoma (p < 0.005), while the most disagreement was observed for esophageal cancer (p < 0.01) biomarker-drug pairs in our dataset.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates noteworthy discordances between the precision oncology experts and may provide the directions for future developments in modifying the ESCAT framework and the overall applicability of the results of genomic profiling into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39368036What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.