Elucidating Prognosis and Biology of Breast Cancer Arising in Young Women Using Gene Expression Profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast cancer in young women is associated with poor prognosis. We aimed to define the role of gene expression signatures in predicting prognosis in young women and to understand biological differences according to age. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were assigned to molecular subtypes [estrogen receptor (ER)(+)/HER2(-); HER2(+), ER(-)/HER2(-))] using a three-gene classifier. We evaluated whether previously published proliferation, stroma, and immune-related gene signatures added prognostic information to Adjuvant! online and tested their interaction with age in a Cox model for relapse-free survival (RFS). Furthermore, we evaluated the association between candidate age-related genes or gene sets with age in an adjusted linear regression model. RESULTS: A total of 3,522 patients (20 data sets) were eligible. Patients aged 40 years or less had a higher proportion of ER(-)/HER2(-) tumors (P < 0.0001) and were associated with poorer RFS after adjustment for breast cancer subtype, tumor size, nodal status, and histologic grade and stratification for data set and treatment modality (HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.10-1.63, P = 0.004). The proliferation gene signatures showed no significant interaction with age in ER(+)/HER2(-) tumors after adjustment for Adjuvant! online. Further analyses suggested that breast cancer in the young is enriched with processes related to immature mammary epithelial cells (luminal progenitors, mammary stem, c-kit, RANKL) and growth factor signaling in two independent cohorts (n = 1,188 and 2,334). CONCLUSIONS: Proliferation-related prognostic gene signatures can aid treatment decision-making for young women. However, breast cancer arising at a young age seems to be biologically distinct beyond subtype distribution. Separate therapeutic approaches such as targeting RANKL or mammary stem cells could therefore be needed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".