MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971594271 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2012-3663

Abstract 3663: A gene signature for predicting outcome in patients with basal-like breast cancer

2012· article· en· W1971594271 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Hallett, Anna Dvorkin‐Gheva, Anita Bane, John A. Hassell

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerGene signatureOncologyBasal (medicine)MedicineInternal medicineGene expression profilingCancerDiseaseGene expressionGeneBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Basal-like breast cancer is a molecular subtype of breast cancer generally thought to have a universally poor prognosis. Subsequent studies examining the long-term outcome in thousands of patients with basal-like breast cancer have shown that these patients can be separated into two clinically distinct groups: those likely to experience a systemic recurrence and succumb to their disease within the first 5 years and those expected to show excellent long term survival. The ability to distinguish between these two sub-groups (good and poor prognosis) of basal-like breast cancer patients at the time of initial diagnosis would permit tailoring more aggressive therapeutic regimens to those patients with an inherently poorer prognosis and conversely to avoid such therapy in patients with a more indolent course. We aimed to identify a gene signature that could predict the clinical outcome of basal-like breast cancer patients. To this end we mined publicly available human breast tumor gene expression profiling data and identified patients with basal-like breast cancer. We divided these patients into training and validation sets to identify and confirm the accuracy of a prognostic signature. We identified 137 basal-like breast tumors among 995 breast tumor gene expression profiles. We used 85 of these samples as a training group and identified an optimal 14-gene signature, which accurately identified patients that experienced poor and good long-term survival. We confirmed the accuracy of our gene signature on a 49 patient independent validation set. Importantly, we also confirmed the capacity of our signature to predict outcome in a chemotherapy naïve 27 patient sub-set of the 49 patients validation set. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3663. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-3663

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207