Gene Expression Profiling and Genetic Markers in Glioblastoma Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the strikingly grave prognosis for older patients with glioblastomas, significant variability in patient outcome is experienced. To explore the potential for developing improved prognostic capabilities based on the elucidation of potential biological relationships, we did analyses of genes commonly mutated, amplified, or deleted in glioblastomas and DNA microarray gene expression data from tumors of glioblastoma patients of age >50 for whom survival is known. No prognostic significance was associated with genetic changes in epidermal growth factor receptor (amplified in 17 of 41 patients), TP53 (mutated in 11 of 41 patients), p16INK4A (deleted in 15 of 33 patients), or phosphatase and tensin homologue (mutated in 15 of 41 patients). Statistical analysis of the gene expression data in connection with survival involved exploration of regression models on small subsets of genes, based on computational search over multiple regression models with cross-validation to assess predictive validity. The analysis generated a set of regression models that, when weighted and combined according to posterior probabilities implied by the statistical analysis, identify patterns in expression of a small subset of genes that are associated with survival and have value in assessing survival risks. The dominant genes across such multiple regression models involve three key genes-SPARC (Osteonectin), Doublecortex, and Semaphorin3B-which play key roles in cellular migration processes. Additional analysis, based on statistical graphical association models constructed using similar computational analysis methods, reveals other genes which support the view that multiple mediators of tumor invasion may be important prognostic factor in glioblastomas in older patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".