Public health practitioners can learn from the weather forecasters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background CTLA-4 is an inhibitory immune checkpoint receptor and a negative regulator of anti-tumor T-cell function. This study aimed at a comparative analysis of CTLA-4+ cells between different tumor entities. Materials and Methods To quantify CTLA-4+ cells, 4,582 tumor samples from 90 different tumor entities as well as 608 samples of 76 different normal tissue types were analyzed by immunohistochemistry in a tissue microarray format. Two different antibody clones (MSVA-152R and CAL49) were validated and quantified using a deep learning framework for automated exclusion of unspecific immunostaining. Results Comparing both CTLA-4 antibodies revealed a clone dependent unspecific staining pattern in adrenal cortical adenoma (63%) for MSVA-152R and in pheochromocytoma (67%) as well as hepatocellular carcinoma (36%) for CAL49. After automated exclusion of non-specific staining reaction (3.6%), a strong correlation was observed for the densities of CTLA-4+ lymphocytes obtained by both antibodies (r=0.87; p<0.0001). The mean density of CTLA-4+ cells was 674±1482 cells/mm2 and ranged from 71±175 cells/mm2 in leiomyoma to 5916±3826 cells/mm2 in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Within epithelial tumors, the density of CTLA-4+ lymphocytes were higher in squamous cell (421±467 cells/mm2) and urothelial carcinomas (419±347 cells/mm2) than in adenocarcinomas (269±375 cells/mm2) and renal cell neoplasms (256±269 cells/mm2). A high CTLA-4+ cell density was linked to low pT category (p<0.0001), absent lymph node metastases (p=0.0354), and PD-L1 expression in tumor cells or inflammatory cells (p<0.0001 each). A high CTLA-4/CD3-ratio was linked to absent lymph node metastases (p=0.0295) and to PD-L1 positivity on immune cells (p<0.0026). Conclusions Marked differences exist in the number of CTLA-4+ lymphocytes between tumors. Analyzing two independent antibodies by a deep learning framework can facilitate automated quantification of immunohistochemically analyzed target proteins such as CTLA-4. Disclosure Information D. Dum: None. T.L.C. Henke: None. T. Mandelkow: None. E. Bady: None. R. Simon: None. G. Sauter: None. S. Steuerer: None. W. Wilczak: None. E. Burandt: None. J. Raedler: None. M. Lennartz: None. N.C. Blessin: None.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.056 |
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".