A Pilot Study Comparing HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas by Whole Exome Sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Next-generation sequencing of cancers has identified important therapeutic targets and biomarkers. The goal of this pilot study was to compare the genetic changes in a human papillomavirus- (HPV-)positive and an HPV-negative head and neck tumor. Methods. DNA was extracted from the blood and primary tumor of a patient with an HPV-positive tonsillar cancer and those of a patient with an HPV-negative oral tongue tumor. Exome enrichment was performed using the Agilent SureSelect All Exon Kit, followed by sequencing on the ABI SOLiD platform. Results. Exome sequencing revealed slightly more mutations in the HPV-negative tumor (73) in contrast to the HPV-positive tumor (58). Multiple mutations were noted in zinc finger genes (ZNF3, 10, 229, 470, 543, 616, 664, 638, 716, and 799) and mucin genes (MUC4, 6, 12, and 16). Mutations were noted in MUC12 in both tumors. Conclusions. HPV-positive HNSCC is distinct from HPV-negative disease in terms of evidence of viral infection, p16 status, and frequency of mutations. Next-generation sequencing has the potential to identify novel therapeutic targets and biomarkers in HNSCC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".