Abstract 4637: Mini-chromosome maintenance protein 7 as a potential theranostic biomarker in epithelial ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mini-Chromosome Maintenance protein 7 (MCM7) is involved in replicative licensing and synthesis of DNA. It is previously identified as over-expressed gene in high-grade serous carcinomas compared to serous borderline tumors of the ovary in cDNA microarray studies. In this study, we sought to validate MCM7 expression in ovarian tumors by applying immunohistochemical analysis on tissue microarrays consisting of 445 ovarian tumors. MCM7 expression was quantified as MCM7 labeling index by determining the tumor nuclei positive for MCM7 staining as a percentage of total tumor nuclei. The labeling index scores were independently generated by two methods: PATH score provided by a manual review of each samples by a pathologist and ACIS score provided by Automated Cell Imaging System. Analyses of both scores indicated high degree of concordance in score distribution between PATH and ACIS. MCM7 expression is significantly higher in high-grade serous carcinomas compared to serous borderline tumors, confirming our previous cDNA microarray studies. In both PATH and ACIS analysis, MCM7 expression is also significantly higher in high-grade serous carcinomas compared to other histology subtypes of ovarian cancer. Finally, to identify the clinical significance of MCM7 expression, we determined the association between MCM7 expression and disease-free survival. MCM7 labeling index was dichotomized into two groups (high and low) using median labeling index as cut-off. For both PATH or ACIS-derived scores, univariate analyses indicate significant association of high MCM7 labeling index with better disease-free survival in high-grade serous carcinomas. These results suggest the clinical significance of MCM7 expression in high-grade serous carcinomas of the ovary and the need for further evaluation of MCM7 as a potential theranostic biomarker. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 4637.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".