MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071120462 · doi:10.1002/pros.20959

High‐resolution array CGH identifies novel regions of genomic alteration in intermediate‐risk prostate cancer

2009· article· en· W2071120462 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrian Ishkanian, Chad A. Mallof, Jcm Ho, Alice Meng, Monique Albert, Amena Syed, Theodorus van der Kwast, Michael Milosevic, Maisa Yoshimoto, Jeremy A. Squire, Wan L. Lam, Robert G. Bristow

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsProstate cancerPTENProstateTMPRSS2ConcordanceComparative genomic hybridizationChromoplexyCancerOncologyCancer researchBiologyMedicineInternal medicineDiseaseGeneticsPCA3GeneChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately one-third of prostate cancer patients present with intermediate risk disease. Interestingly, while this risk group is clinically well defined, it demonstrates the most significant heterogeneity in PSA-based biochemical outcome. Further, the majority of candidate genes associated with prostate cancer progression have been identified using cell lines, xenograft models, and high-risk androgen-independent or metastatic patient samples. We used a global high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) assay to characterize copy number alterations (CNAs) in intermediate risk prostate cancer. Herein, we show this risk group contains a number of alterations previously associated with high-risk disease: (1) deletions at 21q22.2 (TMPRSS2:ERG), 16q22-24 (containing CDH1), 13q14.2 (RB1), 10q23.31 (PTEN), 8p21 (NKX3.1); and, (2) amplification at 8q21.3-24.3 (containing c-MYC). In addition, we identified six novel microdeletions at high frequency: 1q42.12-q42.3 (33.3%), 5q12.3-13.3 (21%), 20q13.32-13.33 (29.2%), 22q11.21 (25%), 22q12.1 (29.2%), and 22q13.31 (33.3%). Further, we show there is little concordance between CNAs from these clinical samples and those found in commonly used prostate cancer cell models. These unexpected findings suggest that the intermediate-risk category is a crucial cohort warranting further study to determine if a unique molecular fingerprint can predict aggressive versus indolent phenotypes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations80
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ProstateSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207