Prognostic significance of PU.1 in follicular lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very few prognostic factors are known in follicular lymphoma (FL), a common malignancy of germinal centre (GC) B-cells. The Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) thus far appears to be the most important predictor of clinical outcome. This study explores the predictive power of the degree of GC differentiation for outcome in FL. Samples from 73 patients with FL were evaluated by immunohistochemistry for expression of GC markers. Strong PU.1, CD20, and CD75 expression were significantly associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results for PFS were independent of the International Prognostic Index or the Italian Lymphoma Intergroup prognostic index for CD75 and PU.1, but only PU.1 expression was independent of FLIPI for PFS and OS. Oct-2 was weakly expressed overall, but more strongly in higher grades of FL; it had a trend for negative linear association with PU.1 and strong positive linear association with CD27, which possibly reflects its role in terminal B-cell differentiation. We show that the level of GC differentiation, as determined by the levels of PU.1, CD75, CD20, Bcl-6, and CD10 expression, has an association with outcome in patients with FL. While this is determined qualitatively in most studies of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, in FL there is a quantitative positive association between a high level of expression of GC antigens and longer OS and PFS even when data are stratified by the FLIPI score.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".