Gene expression monitoring accurately predicts medulloblastoma positive and negative clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction of medulloblastoma clinical outcome is crucial to personalizing treatment, both to identify high-risk patients for aggressive or alternative therapy and to spare those at low risk from excessive treatment. The best predictors [Pomeroy et al. (2002) Nature 415, 436-442], based on gene expression monitoring at diagnosis, have shown much less accuracy in recognizing patients with eventual failed outcomes - <50% for the predictor making fewest total errors - than those who would survive, while a single gene predictor exhibited reverse asymmetry. Such inaccuracy in recognizing one of the outcomes is a problem for clinical use. We hypothesized that a non-linear model could be built to significantly improve prediction of medulloblastoma outcome, thereby promoting use of gene-expression-based predictors in a clinical setting. In fact, this approach resulted in fewer errors and much less asymmetry in prediction, and bidirectional accuracy of about 80% could be obtained via its combination with other methods. Indeed, three combinations of methods were identified that yielded significantly better predictions of clinical outcome than previously attained, making feasible predictors of medulloblastoma treatment response with greatly improved bidirectional accuracy essential for clinical use.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".