MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2052175813 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-1751

Abstract 1751: The influence of sex on prognostic markers for non-small cell lung cancer

2010· article· en· W2052175813 on OpenAlexaff
Boutros C. Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncologyLung cancerProportional hazards modelMedicineInternal medicineTranscriptomeEtiologyDiseaseSurvival analysisUnivariate analysisMicroarrayHazard ratioBioinformaticsBiologyGeneMultivariate analysisGene expressionConfidence intervalGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are significant differences between the sexes in the incidence, presentation, and response to therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study evaluated the effects of these differences on mRNA-based prognostic markers. Several prognostic markers have been developed over the past decade by various groups, generally from microarray datasets. These markers look at the mRNA levels of specific genes and use these to determine whether a patient is likely to good or poor outcome. If such markers were successful at complementing traditional staging criteria (i.e. molecular sub-staging) then patients predicted to have poor outcome could receive additional or more intensive therapies. Surprisingly, to date, the effect of sex on such markers has not been evaluated, despite major differences in disease between males and females. To evaluate this issue, I compiled the data from nine transcriptomic studies of primary NSCLC. These studies were integrated using a novel normalization approach and then subject to meta-analysis. For each gene present in the analysis (16,391 in total), the univariate prognostic capacity was calculated separately for men and women using median dichotomization and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Of the top 100 genes in each sex, only 12 were overlapping. Novel sex-specific prognostic signatures were then derived, and shown to out-perform sex-independent signatures by a statistically significant (p < 0.01) margin. In summary, sex plays a major role in NSCLC etiology and response to therapy. I have demonstrate here that it also greatly effects the efficacy of transcriptomic prognostic markers. Note: This abstract was not presented at the AACR 101st Annual Meeting 2010 because the presenter was unable to attend. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1751.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→