Analysis of secondary chromosomal alterations in 165 cases of follicular lymphoma with t(14;18)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Follicular lymphoma is characterized by the t(14;18) in up to 85% of cases. Almost all cases display evidence of secondary chromosomal alterations at initial diagnosis. The influence of recurrent secondary changes on disease progression has not been fully determined. The purpose of this study was to define the full spectrum of recurrent karyotypic events present at diagnosis in a large cohort of cases and to evaluate the sequence of cytogenetic evolution in relation to morphologic progression. A total of 165 cases of follicular lymphoma with t(14;18) were ascertained for which complete clinical information, histopathology, immunophenotype, and karyotype were available. One hundred sixty cases showed secondary alterations with an average of 7.9 additional changes per case. Recurrent alterations seen at the 10% or greater level included +X, +1q21-q44, +7, +12q, +18q, del(1)(p36), del(6q), del(10)(q22-q24), the development of polyploidy and sidelines, and the presence of extra marker chromosomes and chromosomal additions. Changes that correlated with morphologic progression included del(1)(p36), del(6q), del(10)(q22-q24), +7, the total number of abnormalities, the number of markers and additions, and the presence of polyploidy. The most frequent second event arising after the t(14;18) was duplication of the der(18)t(14;18). This study demonstrates that the number and type of secondary chromosomal alterations in follicular lymphoma is highly variable between cases, but that a relatively small number of changes are seen repeatedly in different combinations. A consistent pattern of cytogenetic evolution could not be identified. Potentially significant gene duplications or amplifications may be disguised within marker chromosomes and additions. Additional cytogenetic investigation is required to decipher the karyotypic complexity associated with the progression of follicular 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".