Predicting Outcome in Follicular Lymphoma by Using Interactive Gene Pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Follicular lymphoma is a common lymphoma of adults. Although its course is often indolent, a substantial proportion of patients have a poor prognosis, often due to rapid progression or transformation to a more aggressive lymphoma. Currently available clinical prognostic scores, such as the follicular lymphoma international prognostic index, are not able to optimally predict transformation or poor outcome. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Gene expression profiling was done on primary lymphoma biopsy samples. RESULTS: Using a statistically conservative approach, predictive interaction analysis, we have identified pairs of interacting genes that predict poor outcome, measured as death within 5 years of diagnosis. The best gene pair performs >1,000-fold better than any single gene or the follicular lymphoma international prognostic index in our data set. Many gene pairs achieve outcome prediction accuracies exceeding 85% in extensive cross-validation and noise sensitivity computational analyses. Many genes repeatedly appear in top-ranking pairs, suggesting that they reproducibly provide predictive capability. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence reported here may provide the basis for an expression-based, multi-gene test for predicting poor follicular lymphoma outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".