A new biologic prognostic model based on immunohistochemistry predicts survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biologic factors that predict the survival of patients with a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, such as cell of origin and stromal signatures, have been discovered by gene expression profiling. We attempted to simulate these gene expression profiling findings and create a new biologic prognostic model based on immunohistochemistry. We studied 199 patients (125 in the training set, 74 in the validation set) with de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab and CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or CHOP-like therapies, and immunohistochemical stains were performed on paraffin-embedded tissue microarrays. In the model, 1 point was awarded for each adverse prognostic factor: nongerminal center B cell-like subtype, SPARC (secreted protein, acidic, and rich in cysteine) < 5%, and microvascular density quartile 4. The model using these 3 biologic markers was highly predictive of overall survival and event-free survival in multivariate analysis after adjusting for the International Prognostic Index in both the training and validation sets. This new model delineates 2 groups of patients, 1 with a low biologic score (0-1) and good survival and the other with a high score (2-3) and poor survival. This new biologic prognostic model could be used with the International Prognostic Index to stratify patients for novel or risk-adapted therapies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".