Microarray gene expression profiling using core biopsies of renal neoplasia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the feasibility of using microarray gene expression profiling technology to analyze core biopsies of renal tumors for classification of tumor histology. Core biopsies were obtained ex-vivo from 7 renal tumors-comprised of four histological subtypes-following radical nephrectomy using 18-gauge biopsy needles. RNA was isolated from these samples and, in the case of biopsy samples, amplified by in vitro transcription. Microarray analysis was then used to quantify the mRNA expression patterns in these samples relative to non-diseased renal tissue mRNA. Genes with significant variation across all non-biopsy tumor samples were identified, and the relationship between tumor and biopsy samples in terms of expression levels of these genes was then quantified in terms of Euclidean distance, and visualized by complete linkage clustering. Final pathologic assessment of kidney tumors demonstrated clear cell renal cell carcinoma (4), oncocytoma (1), angiomyolipoma (1) and adrenalcortical carcinoma (1). Five of the seven biopsy samples were most similar in terms of gene expression to the resected tumors from which they were derived in terms of Euclidean distance. All seven biopsies were assigned to the correct histological class by hierarchical clustering. We demonstrate the feasibility of gene expression profiling of core biopsies of renal tumors to classify tumor histology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".