Orphan receptor tyrosine kinases ROR1 and ROR2 in hematological malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The receptor tyrosine kinase ROR1 has been shown to be overexpressed in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The aim of this study was to further characterize the expression of ROR1 and the other member of the ROR family, ROR2, in other lymphoid and myeloid malignancies. Normal white blood cells and reactive lymph nodes were negative for ROR1 and ROR2. A significantly high and uniform surface expression of ROR1 was found in CLL/hairy cell leukemia (HCL) compared to mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), myelomas, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and myeloid leukemias (p = 0.02 to < 0.001). The lowest proportion of ROR1+ cells was seen in FL, whereas CLL, HCL and CML had significantly higher numbers of ROR1+ cells. Longitudinal follow-up of individual patients with CLL revealed that ROR1+ cells remained stable over time in non-progressive patients, but increased when the disease progressed (p < 0.05). Thus, a variable staining pattern of ROR1 ranging from very high (CLL, HCL) and high (CML) to intermediate (myeloma and DLBCL) or low (FL) was noted. ROR2 was not detected in hematological malignancies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".