Prognostic impact of chromosomal aberrations in Ewing tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although greater than 50% of Ewing tumours contain non-random cytogenetic aberrations in addition to the pathognomonic 22q12 rearrangements, little is known about their prognostic significance. To address this question, tumour samples from 134 Ewing tumour patients were analysed using a combination of classical cytogenetics, comparative genomic and fluorescence in situ hybridisation. The evaluation of the compiled data revealed that gain of chromosome 8 occurred in 52% of Ewing tumours but was not a predictive factor for outcome. Gain of 1q was associated with adverse overall survival and event-free survival in all patients, irrespective of whether the tumour was localised or disseminated (overall survival: P=0.002 and P=0.029; event-free survival: P=0.018 and P=0.010). Loss of 16q was a significant predictive factor for adverse overall survival in all patients (P=0.008) and was associated with disseminated disease at diagnosis (P=0.039). Gain of chromosome 12 was associated with adverse event-free survival (P=0.009) in patients with localised disease. These results indicate that in addition to a 22q12 rearrangement confirmation in Ewing tumours it is important to assess the copy number of 1q and 16q to identify patients with a higher probability of adverse outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".