ALK gene copy number in lung cancer: Unspecific polyploidy versus specific amplification visible as double minutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gains of a gene due to DNA polyploidy versus amplification of the specific locus are distinct molecular alterations in tumors. OBJECTIVE: We quantified copy number gains of ALK gene due to unspecific polyploidy versus amplifications of the specific locus in a series of non-small cell lung cancers. METHODS: The locus specific ALK copy (LSI) number status was evaluated in 205 cases by FISH. Ratio LSI ALK copy number corrected for control probes CEP2, CEP3 and CEP17 (CEPs) was scored. Amplification of the specific ALK locus was defined when ratio set to ≥ 2 while polyploidy was interpreted when the increase in gene copy resulted < 2 in ratio (LSI/control CEPs). RESULTS: Twenty one cases (10.2%) showed ≥ 8 ALK signals, 68 cases (33.2%) 3-7 signals and 116 cases (56.6%) a mean of 2 signals. Only 2/21 cases of the cohort harboring ≥ 8 signals showed a ratio ≥ 2 after CEPs correction interpretable as amplified, showing numerous doubled fluorescent spots. All the remaining cases showed a mirrored number of fluorescent spots per each CEPs, interpretable as polyploidy. CONCLUSION: We detected a high prevalence of ALK gene copy number usually due to polyploidy rather than ALK locus amplification, the latter visible prevalently as double minutes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".