Acquisition of secondary structural chromosomal changes in pediatric ewing sarcoma is a probable prognostic factor for tumor response and clinical outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ewing sarcoma (ES) group of tumors commonly have the t(11;22)(q24;q12) or other rearrangements involving 22q12. In addition to these consistent aberrations, both numeric and structural aberrations have been reported: namely gains of chromosomes 8 and 12, the unbalanced translocation t(1;16), and deletions at the short arm of chromosome 1. METHODS: To evaluate the frequency and to study the prognostic implications of some of these aberrations in children, the authors performed a pilot study of 26 ES pediatric patients by classic cytogenetics and/or interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and compared these data with clinical parameters. RESULTS: Gains of chromosomes 8 and 12 were detected, by interphase FISH, in 48% (10 of 21) and 38% (6 of 16) of the tumors, respectively, and this was not significant with respect to treatment response. Statistical analysis revealed that the presence of additional secondary structural chromosomal aberrations was associated with an unfavorable outcome (P = 0.0034 as an independent prognostic value as an unfavorable marker). Presence of metastasis at diagnosis also was found to be associated with poor outcome (P = 0.0131). Spectral karyotyping analysis was shown to facilitate the detection of more complex structural chromosomal aberrations in a representative ES tumor. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to determine whether additional structural chromosomal aberrations are present in ES tumors because it appears that a more complex karyotype with multiple chromosomal aberrations is associated with poor outcome in ES.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".