Parallel analysis of sporadic primary ovarian carcinomas by spectral karyotyping, comparative genomic hybridization, and expression microarrays.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of ovarian carcinomas has shown that karyotypes are often highly abnormal and cannot be identified with certainty by conventional cytogenetic methods. In this study, 17 tumors derived from 13 patients were analyzed by a combination of spectral karyotyping (SKY), comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), and expression microarrays. Within the study group, a total of 396 chromosomal rearrangements could be identified by SKY and CGH analysis. When the distribution of aberrations was normalized with respect to relative genomic length, chromosomes 3, 8, 11, 17, and 21 had the highest frequencies. Parallel microarray expression studies of 1718 human cDNAs were used to analyze expression profiles and to determine whether correlating gene expression with chromosomal rearrangement would identify smaller subsets of differentially expressed genes. Within the entire set of samples, microarray expression analysis grouped together poorly differentiated tumors irrespective of histological subtype. For three patients, a comparison between genomic alterations and gene expression pattern was performed on samples of primary and metastatic tumors. Their common origin was demonstrated by the close relationship of both the SKY and CGH karyotypes and the observed profiles of gene expression. In agreement with the pattern of genomic imbalance observed for chromosome 3 in ovarian cancer, the relative expression profile with respect to a normal ovary exhibited a contiguous pattern of reduced expression of genes mapping to the 3p25.5-3p21.31 and increased expression of genes from 3q13.33-3q28. This study demonstrates that SKY, CGH, and microarray analysis can in combination identify significantly smaller subsets of differentially expressed genes for future studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".