MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chromosome abnormalities defined by conventional cytogenetics in plasma cell leukemia: what have we learned about its biology?

2011· article· en· W1572717899 on OpenAlexaff
Víctor H. Jiménez‐Zepeda, Yvette Neme-Yunes, Esteban Braggio

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal Of Haematology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKaryotypeCytogeneticsBiologyChromosomeMultiple myelomaGeneticsLeukemiaSomatic evolution in cancerPlasma cell leukemiaCancer researchCancerPathologyImmunologyGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer cells are characterized by having chromosomal abnormalities. The number of aberrations and the specific chromosomes affected are likely correlated with tumor progression. In this study, we analyzed the karyotype of 126 plasma cell leukemia (PCL) patients to identify the most frequently occurring imbalances and to design a model of karyotypic evolution. The Mitelman database of chromosome was searched and abnormal karyotypes were assessed. The main clones were analyzed and chromosomal gains and losses were used to design a model of genetic acquisition based on the calculation of a variable called time to occurrence. Our comprehensive study of genetic abnormalities of a large number of PCL karyotypes suggests that PCL is mainly characterized by the presence of whole chromosome losses as well as IgH rearrangements which is similar to that observed in non-hyperdiploid multiple myeloma (MM). Temporal analysis suggests that most PCL have around 10 abnormalities at diagnosis. It is possible that accumulation of abnormalities such as 17p13 (TP53) and 1p losses may trigger the extramedullary features of PCL. Our study demonstrates that cytogenetics is a valuable tool to evaluate the role of genetic imbalances on karyotypic evolution by using a mathematical model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal Of HaematologySame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207