Quantification of HER2 heterogeneity in breast cancer–implications for identification of sub-dominant clones for personalised treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, at both an inter- and intra-tumoural level. Appreciating heterogeneity through the application of biomarkers and molecular signatures adds complexity to tumour taxonomy but is key to personalising diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. The extent to which heterogeneity exists, and its interpretation remains a challenge to pathologists. Using HER2 as an exemplar, we have developed a simple reproducible heterogeneity index. Cell-to-cell HER2 heterogeneity was extensive in a proportion of both reported 'amplified' and 'non-amplified' cases. The highest levels of heterogeneity objectively identified occurred in borderline categories and higher ratio non-amplified cases. A case with particularly striking heterogeneity was analysed further with an array of biomarkers in order to assign a molecular diagnosis. Broad biological complexity was evident. In essence, interpretation, depending on the area of tumour sampled, could have been one of three distinct phenotypes, each of which would infer different therapeutic interventions. Therefore, we recommend that heterogeneity is assessed and taken into account when determining treatment options.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".