Integrating RAS Status into Prognostic Signatures for Adenocarcinomas of the Lung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: While the dysregulation of specific pathways in cancer influences both treatment response and outcome, few current prognostic markers explicitly consider differential pathway activation. Here we explore this concept, focusing on K-Ras mutations in lung adenocarcinoma (present in 25%-35% of patients). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The effect of K-Ras mutation status on prognostic accuracy of existing signatures was evaluated in 404 patients. Genes associated with K-Ras mutation status were identified and used to create a RAS pathway activation classifier to provide a more accurate measure of RAS pathway status. Next, 8 million random signatures were evaluated to assess differences in prognosing patients with or without RAS activation. Finally, a prognostic signature was created to target patients with RAS pathway activation. RESULTS: We first show that K-Ras status influences the accuracy of existing prognostic signatures, which are effective in K-Ras-wild-type patients but fail in patients with K-Ras mutations. Next, we show that it is fundamentally more difficult to predict the outcome of patients with RAS activation (RAS(mt)) than that of those without (RAS(wt)). More importantly, we demonstrate that different signatures are prognostic in RAS(wt) and RAS(mt). Finally, to exploit this discovery, we create separate prognostic signatures for RAS(wt) and RAS(mt) patients and show that combining them significantly improves predictions of patient outcome. CONCLUSIONS: We present a nested model for integrated genomic and transcriptomic data. This model is general and is not limited to lung adenocarcinomas but can be expanded to other tumor types and oncogenes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".