MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061196972 · doi:10.1182/blood-2005-01-0033

Immunohistochemistry accurately predicts FGFR3 aberrant expression and t(4;14) in multiple myeloma

2005· article· en· W2061196972 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Chang, A. Keith Stewart, Qi Xiao, Zhihua Li, Qi Long Yi, Suzanne Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryMultiple myelomaImmunocytochemistryIsotypePathologyFibroblast growth factor receptor 3BiologyChromosomal translocationImmunoglobulin AFluorescence in situ hybridizationAntibodyMedicineInternal medicineFibroblast growth factorMonoclonal antibodyReceptorImmunologyImmunoglobulin G

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The t(4;14) translocation detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is an independent prognostic factor for an adverse outcome of multiple myeloma (MM). Because t(4;14) uniquely results in fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) expression, decalcified, paraffin-embedded bone marrow biopsies were immunostained for FGFR3, and its expression was correlated with the t(4;14) status. FISH detected t(4;14) in 16 (19%) of 85 MM patient specimens, and immunocytochemistry detected aberrant FGFR3 expression in 13 (15%). Twelve (75%) t(4;14)-positive cases expressed FGFR3, and 12 (92%) FGFR3-positive cases harbored a t(4;14). FGFR3 expression and t(4;14) were strongly correlated (P < .001). FGFR3 expression by immunohistochemistry was associated with the immunoglobulin A (IgA) isotype (P < .001), a shorter progression-free survival (median, 11.5 versus 25.8 months; P < .001), and a shorter overall survival (median, 19.2 versus 46.3 months; P < .001).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations76
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207