MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016306999 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.073

The Prognostic Ease and Difficulty of Invasive Breast Carcinoma

2014· article· en· W2016306999 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Asghar Tofigh, Matthew Suderman, Éric R. Paquet, Julie Livingstone, Nicholas Bertos, Sadiq M.I. Saleh, Hong Zhao, Margarita Souleimanova, Sean Cory, Robert Lesurf, Solmaz Shahalizadeh, Yasser Riazalhosseini, Atilla Ömeroğlu, Josie Ursini‐Siegel, Morag Park, Vanessa Dumeaux, Michael Hallett

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation CentreMcGill Genome CentreMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsOncologyConfoundingBreast cancerInternal medicineBreast carcinomaMedicineMetastasisBioinformaticsCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast carcinoma (BC) has been extensively profiled by high-throughput technologies for over a decade, and broadly speaking, these studies can be grouped into those that seek to identify patient subtypes (studies of heterogeneity) or those that seek to identify gene signatures with prognostic or predictive capacity. The sheer number of reported signatures has led to speculation that everything is prognostic in BC. Here, we show that this ubiquity is an apparition caused by a poor understanding of the interrelatedness between subtype and the molecular determinants of prognosis. Our approach constructively shows how to avoid confounding due to a patient's subtype, clinicopathological profile, or treatment profile. The approach identifies patients who are predicted to have good outcome at time of diagnosis by all available clinical and molecular markers but who experience a distant metastasis within 5 years. These inherently difficult patients (~7% of BC) are prioritized for investigations of intratumoral heterogeneity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations77
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207