Loss of imprinting of the insulin-like growth factor II (IGF2) gene in esophageal normal and adenocarcinoma tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate loss of imprinting (LOI) and expression of the IGF2 gene in matched esophageal normal and adenocarcinoma tissues, we studied a prospective cohort of 77 patients who underwent esophageal resection between 1998 and 2003. IGF2 imprinting status was determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) following ApaI digestion, and quantitative PCR was used to evaluate IGF2 expression, which was correlated with clinicopathologic findings, disease-free and overall survival. In total, 32% (14/44) of informative tissues showed loss of IGF2 imprinting, with a strong correlation between the tumor and normal esophageal epithelia (Kappa = 0.89, P < 0.01). Normal epithelia with LOI had increased expression of IGF2 [median: 2.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-5.06] compared with imprinted normal epithelia (median: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.85-1.39) (P = 0.03). In contrast, tumors with LOI had significantly reduced IGF2 expression (median: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.53-5.21) compared with normally imprinted tumors (median: 6.79, 95% CI: 3.39-15.89) (P = 0.016). Patients below the age of 65 years with normally imprinted tumors had significantly reduced 5 year disease-free survival (DFS) (24%) compared with patients whose tumors had LOI for IGF2 (55%) (P = 0.03). Cox regression analysis showed that IGF2 overexpression was associated with significantly reduced disease-free survival (P = 0.04). We conclude that in a subgroup of younger patients, loss of IGF2 imprinting was associated with improved outcome following esophageal resection. Expression of IGF2 in esophageal adenocarcinoma and normal esophageal epithelia depended on imprinting status and tissue type, suggesting novel molecular regulatory mechanisms in esophageal tumorigenesis.
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".