MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507857874 · doi:10.1038/srep31628

Elucidating Genomic Characteristics of Lung Cancer Progression from In Situ to Invasive Adenocarcinoma

2016· article· en· W2507857874 on OpenAlexaff
Chanida Vinayanuwattikun, Florence Le Calvez‐Kelm, Behnoush Abedi‐Ardekani, Давид Заридзе, Anush Mukeria, Catherine Voegele, Maxime Vallée, Dewajani Purnomosari, Nathalie Forey, Geoffroy Durand, Graham Byrnes, James McKay, Paul Brennan, Ghislaine Scélo

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersEuropean CommissionCentre International de Recherche sur le CancerWorld Health Organization
KeywordsAdenocarcinomaKRASSomatic cellBiologySomatic evolution in cancerLung cancerCancer researchGermline mutationCancerPathologyMutationGeneMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the diversity of somatic alterations and clonal evolution according to aggressiveness of disease, nineteen tumor-blood pairs of 'formerly bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (BAC)' which had been reclassified into preinvasive lesion (adenocarcinoma in situ; AIS), focal invasive lesion (minimally invasive adenocarcinoma; MIA), and invasive lesion (lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma; LPA and non-lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma; non-LPA) according to IASLC/ATS/ERS 2011 classification were explored by whole exome sequencing. Several distinct somatic alterations were observed compare to the lung adenocarcinoma study from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). There were higher numbers of tumors with significant APOBEC mutation fold enrichment (73% vs. 58% TCGA). The frequency of KRAS mutations was lower in our study (5% vs. 32% TCGA), while a higher number of mutations of RNA-splicing genes, RBM10 and U2AF1, were found (37% vs. 11% TCGA). We found neither mutational pattern nor somatic copy number alterations that were specific to AIS/MIA. We demonstrated that clonal cell fraction was the only distinctive feature that discriminated LPA/non-LPA from AIS/MIA. The broad range of clonal frequency signified a more branched clonal evolution at the time of diagnosis. Assessment of tumor clonal cell fraction might provide critical information for individualized therapy as a prognostic factor, however this needs further study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207