Predicting Survival in Follicular Lymphoma Using Tissue Microarrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tissue microarray (TMA) containing diagnostic biopsies was used to develop predictors of outcome in a group of 105 patients having advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL). The patients were staged and uniformly treated, and the usable cases had been randomly divided into a subgroup of 50 patients with outcomes identified, and a reserved subgroup of 43 patients whose outcomes were masked for blind testing of the predictors. Using training-input data from some patients with known outcomes, parallel cascade identification developed two predictors of overall survival based on a number of biomarkers. Both predictors had statistically significant performance over the remaining patients with known outcomes. The first predictor had been identified with model architectural settings and encoding scheme chosen, for the particular training input used, to enhance classification accuracy over remaining patients in the known subgroup. The second predictor was obtained without changing the settings and encoding scheme, but from an entirely different training input corresponding to novel cases from the TMA. Not surprisingly, the first predictor showed much higher accuracy over the known subgroup, but when tested over the reserved subgroup of 43 patients, averaged about 58% correct and did not reach statistical significance. The other predictor performed very similarly over the known and the reserved subgroups, with prediction on the reserved subgroup highly significant at p = 0.0056 in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. We conclude that a predictor based on a number of biomarkers obtainable at diagnosis has the potential to improve prediction of overall survival in FL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".