Recurrent genomic alterations in sequential progressive leukoplakia and oral cancer: drivers of oral tumorigenesis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant proportion (up to 62%) of oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs) may arise from oral potential malignant lesions (OPMLs), such as leukoplakia. Patient outcomes may thus be improved through detection of lesions at a risk for malignant transformation, by identifying and categorizing genetic changes in sequential, progressive OPMLs. We conducted array comparative genomic hybridization analysis of 25 sequential, progressive OPMLs and same-site OSCCs from five patients. Recurrent DNA copy number gains were identified on 1p in 20/25 cases (80%) with minimal, high-level amplification regions on 1p35 and 1p36. Other regions of gains were frequently observed: 11q13.4 (68%), 9q34.13 (64%), 21q22.3 (60%), 6p21 and 6q25 (56%) and 10q24, 19q13.2, 22q12, 5q31.2, 7p13, 10q24 and 14q22 (48%). DNA losses were observed in >20% of samples and mainly detected on 5q31.2 (35%), 16p13.2 (30%), 9q33.1 and 9q33.29 (25%) and 17q11.2, 3p26.2, 18q21.1, 4q34.1 and 8p23.2 (20%). Such copy number alterations (CNAs) were mapped in all grades of dysplasia that progressed, and their corresponding OSCCs, in 70% of patients, indicating that these CNAs may be associated with disease progression. Amplified genes mapping within recurrent CNAs (KHDRBS1, PARP1, RAB1A, HBEGF, PAIP2, BTBD7) were selected for validation, by quantitative real-time PCR, in an independent set of 32 progressive leukoplakia, 32 OSSCs and 21 non-progressive leukoplakia samples. Amplification of BTBD7, KHDRBS1, PARP1 and RAB1A was exclusively detected in progressive leukoplakia and corresponding OSCC. BTBD7, KHDRBS1, PARP1 and RAB1A may be associated with OSCC progression. Protein-protein interaction networks were created to identify possible pathways associated with OSCC progression.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".