Discovery and Validation of Novel Expression Signature for Postcystectomy Recurrence in High-Risk Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nearly half of muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients succumb to their disease following cystectomy. Selecting candidates for adjuvant therapy is currently based on clinical parameters with limited predictive power. This study aimed to develop and validate genomic-based signatures that can better identify patients at risk for recurrence than clinical models alone. METHODS: Transcriptome-wide expression profiles were generated using 1.4 million feature-arrays on archival tumors from 225 patients who underwent radical cystectomy and had muscle-invasive and/or node-positive bladder cancer. Genomic (GC) and clinical (CC) classifiers for predicting recurrence were developed on a discovery set (n = 133). Performances of GC, CC, an independent clinical nomogram (IBCNC), and genomic-clinicopathologic classifiers (G-CC, G-IBCNC) were assessed in the discovery and independent validation (n = 66) sets. GC was further validated on four external datasets (n = 341). Discrimination and prognostic abilities of classifiers were compared using area under receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A 15-feature GC was developed on the discovery set with area under curve (AUC) of 0.77 in the validation set. This was higher than individual clinical variables, IBCNC (AUC = 0.73), and comparable to CC (AUC = 0.78). Performance was improved upon combining GC with clinical nomograms (G-IBCNC, AUC = 0.82; G-CC, AUC = 0.86). G-CC high-risk patients had elevated recurrence probabilities (P < .001), with GC being the best predictor by multivariable analysis (P = .005). Genomic-clinicopathologic classifiers outperformed clinical nomograms by decision curve and reclassification analyses. GC performed the best in validation compared with seven prior signatures. GC markers remained prognostic across four independent datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The validated genomic-based classifiers outperform clinical models for predicting postcystectomy bladder cancer recurrence. This may be used to better identify patients who need more aggressive management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".