Molecular signaling network complexity is correlated with cancer patient survivability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 5-y survival for cancer patients after diagnosis and treatment is strongly dependent on tumor type. Prostate cancer patients have a >99% chance of survival past 5 y after diagnosis, and pancreatic patients have <6% chance of survival past 5 y. Because each cancer type has its own molecular signaling network, we asked if there are "signatures" embedded in these networks that inform us as to the 5-y survival. In other words, are there statistical metrics of the network that correlate with survival? Furthermore, if there are, can such signatures provide clues to selecting new therapeutic targets? From the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes Cancer Pathway database we computed several conventional and some less conventional network statistics. In particular we found a correlation (R(2) = 0.7) between degree-entropy and 5-y survival based on the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. This correlation suggests that cancers that have a more complex molecular pathway are more refractory than those with less complex molecular pathway. We also found potential new molecular targets for drugs by computing the betweenness--a statistical metric of the centrality of a node--for the molecular networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".