MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990518755 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-1532

A Gene Expression Signature for Relapse of Primary Wilms Tumors

2005· article· en· W1990518755 on OpenAlexaff
Wenliang Li, Patricia Kessler, Herman Yeger, Jennifer Alami, Anthony E. Reeve, Rosemary Heathcott, Jane Skeen, Bryan Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsWilms' tumorAnaplasiaCancer researchPrimary tumorMetastasisGeneBiologyCancerGene expressionMedicineOncologyPathologyInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anaplastic histology and metastasis are each associated with higher relapse and mortality rates in Wilms tumor patients. However, not all anaplastic tumors relapse and some nonanaplastic tumors relapse unexpectedly. To identify more accurate early prognostic indicators, we analyzed expression of 4,900 cancer-related genes in 26 primary Wilms tumors. This analysis revealed that expression of a set of four genes predicts future relapse of primary Wilms tumors with high accuracy, independent of anaplasia. Random permutation testing of this prognostic gene expression signature yielded P = 0.003. Real-time reverse transcription-PCR analysis of the four genes in an independent primary tumor set resulted in correct prediction of future relapse with an accuracy of 92%. One of the four genes in the prognostic signature, CCAAT/enhancer binding protein beta (C/EBPB), is expressed at higher levels in both primary relapsing tumors and metastatic tumors than in primary nonrelapsing tumors. Short interfering RNA-mediated down-regulation of C/EBPB expression in WiT49, a cell line derived from a metastatic Wilms tumor, resulted in spontaneous apoptosis. These findings suggest that C/EBPB is a critical survival factor for Wilms tumor cells and that its expression contributes to the prognosis of Wilms tumor patients.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations63
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207