Bayesian Inference of Tumor Hypoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumor hypoxia is a state of oxygen deprivation in tumors. It has been associated with aggressive tumor phenotypes and with increased resistance to conventional cancer therapies. In this study, we report on the application of Bayesian sequential analysis in estimating the most probable value of tumor hypoxia quantification based on immunohistochemical assays of a biomarker.The ‘gold standard’ of tumor hypoxia assessment is a direct measurement of pO2 in vivo by the Eppendorf polarographic electrode, which is an invasive technique restricted to accessible sites and living tissues. An attractive alternative is immunohistochemical staining to detect proteins expressed by cells during hypoxia. Carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) is an enzyme expressed on the cell membrane during hypoxia to balance the immediate extracellular microenvironment. CAIX is widely regarded as a surrogate marker of chronic hypoxia in various cancers.The study was conducted with two different experimental procedures. The first data set was a group of three patients with invasive cervical carcinomas, from which five biopsies were obtained. Each of the biopsies was fully sectioned and from each section, the proportion of CAIX‐positive cells was estimated. Measurements were made by image analysis of multiple deep sections cut through these biopsies, labeled for CAIX using both immunofluorescence and immunohistochemical techniques [1]. The second data set was a group of 24 patients, also with invasive cervical carcinomas, from which two biopsies were obtained. Bayesian parameter estimation was applied to obtain a reliable inference about the proportion of CAIX‐positive cells within the carcinomas, based on the available biopsies.From the first data set, two to three biopsies were found to be sufficient to infer the overall CAIX percentage in the simple form: best estimate±uncertainty. The second data‐set led to a similar result in 70% of the cases. In the remaining cases Bayes’ theorem warned us automatically that the inference from the data could not be summarized by just two numbers, but the full posterior probability density function (pdf) had to be used.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".