P36. The prognostic potential of circulating and tissue activin A level in malignant pleural mesothelioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive malignancy characterized by poor outcome and there is a lack of prognostic biomarkers to estimate prognosis. Previously we have shown that suppression of activin A can interfere with MPM tumor growth. In the current study, we compare the circulating and tissue expression level of activin A as a prognostic biomarker in MPM. METHODS: In a cohort of 53 MPM patients, plasma samples were collected between 2010 and 2014. Controls consisted of age-matched healthy individuals (n=46) and patients with pleuritis or pleural fibrosis (n=16). Circulating activin A was measured by ELISA and correlated to clinicopathological data. Furthermore, activin A expression in the tumor tissue was semiquantitatively measured by immunohistochemistry in 24 patients. RESULTS: Plasma activin A level was significantly elevated in MPM patients (n=53, 843±122 pg/mL) when compared to healthy controls (452±144 pg/mL, P=0.0039). Non-malignant pleuritis or pleural fibrosis patients only showed a modest, non-significant increase (625±95 pg/mL, P=0.093). Circulating activin A levels were slightly increased in cases with non-epitheloid morphology (n=16, 1101±183) when compared to epithelioid (n=37, 732±153 pg/mL, P=0.13). MPM patients with below median activin A concentrations had a modestly and non-significantly longer overall survival when compared to the high activin A level patients (469 vs. 271 days, P=0.4751). Interestingly, there was no correlation between circulating and tissue expression level of activin A in 17 patients where both parameters could have been analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the measurement of circulating activin A may support the diagnosis and prognosis of MPM but additional patient cohorts need to be analyzed to establish the diagnostic and prognostic value of this non-invasive biomarker.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".