Yin Yang Gene Expression Ratio Signature for Lung Cancer Prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have established gene expression-based prognostic signatures for lung cancer. All of these signatures were built from training data sets by learning the correlation of gene expression with the patients' survival time. They require all new sample data to be normalized to the training data, ultimately resulting in common problems of low reproducibility and impracticality. To overcome these problems, we propose a new signature model which does not involve data training. We hypothesize that the imbalance of two opposing effects in lung cancer cells, represented by Yin and Yang genes, determines a patient's prognosis. We selected the Yin and Yang genes by comparing expression data from normal lung and lung cancer tissue samples using both unsupervised clustering and pathways analyses. We calculated the Yin and Yang gene expression mean ratio (YMR) as patient risk scores. Thirty-one Yin and thirty-two Yang genes were identified and selected for the signature development. In normal lung tissues, the YMR is less than 1.0; in lung cancer cases, the YMR is greater than 1.0. The YMR was tested for lung cancer prognosis prediction in four independent data sets and it significantly stratified patients into high- and low-risk survival groups (p = 0.02, HR = 2.72; p = 0.01, HR = 2.70; p = 0.007, HR = 2.73; p = 0.005, HR = 2.63). It also showed prediction of the chemotherapy outcomes for stage II & III. In multivariate analysis, the YMR risk factor was more successful at predicting clinical outcomes than other commonly used clinical factors, with the exception of tumor stage. The YMR can be measured in an individual patient in the clinic independent of gene expression platform. This study provided a novel insight into the biology of lung cancer and shed light on the clinical applicability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".