Molecular Diagnosis of Burkitt's Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The distinction between Burkitt's lymphoma and diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma is crucial because these two types of lymphoma require different treatments. We examined whether gene-expression profiling could reliably distinguish Burkitt's lymphoma from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. METHODS: Tumor-biopsy specimens from 303 patients with aggressive lymphomas were profiled for gene expression and were also classified according to morphology, immunohistochemistry, and detection of the t(8;14) c-myc translocation. RESULTS: A classifier based on gene expression correctly identified all 25 pathologically verified cases of classic Burkitt's lymphoma. Burkitt's lymphoma was readily distinguished from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma by the high level of expression of c-myc target genes, the expression of a subgroup of germinal-center B-cell genes, and the low level of expression of major-histocompatibility-complex class I genes and nuclear factor-kappaB target genes. Eight specimens with a pathological diagnosis of diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma had the typical gene-expression profile of Burkitt's lymphoma, suggesting they represent cases of Burkitt's lymphoma that are difficult to diagnose by current methods. Among 28 of the patients with a molecular diagnosis of Burkitt's lymphoma, the overall survival was superior among those who had received intensive chemotherapy regimens instead of lower-dose regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Gene-expression profiling is an accurate, quantitative method for distinguishing Burkitt's lymphoma from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".