MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570729870 · doi:10.1002/cncr.30496

Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics‐based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer

2017· article· en· W2570729870 on OpenAlexafffund
Aline Talhouk, Melissa K. McConechy, Samuel Leung, Winnie Yang, Amy Lum, Janine Senz, Niki Boyd, J.A. Pike, Michael S. Anglesio, Janice S. Kwon, Anthony N. Karnezis, David G. Huntsman, C. Blake Gilks, Jessica N. McAlpine

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBC Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineOncologyEndometrial cancerDNA mismatch repairInternal medicineLynch syndromeCancerBioinformaticsColorectal cancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Classification of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) by morphologic features is irreproducible and imperfectly reflects tumor biology. The authors developed the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE), a molecular classification system based on The Cancer Genome Atlas genomic subgroups, and sought to confirm both feasibility and prognostic ability in a new, large cohort of ECs. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the presence or absence of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (to identify MMR deficiency [MMR-D]), sequencing for polymerase-ɛ (POLE) exonuclease domain mutations (POLE EDMs), and IHC for tumor protein 53 (p53) (wild type vs null/missense mutations; p53 wt and p53 abn, respectively) were performed on 319 new EC samples. Subgroups were characterized and assessed relative to outcomes. The prognostic ability of ProMisE was compared with that of current risk-stratification systems (European Society of Medical Oncology [ESMO]). RESULTS: ProMisE decision-tree classification achieved categorization of all cases and identified 4 prognostic subgroups with distinct overall, disease-specific, and progression-free survival (P < .001). Tumors with POLE EDMs had the most favorable prognosis, and those with p53 abn the worst prognosis, and separation of the 2 middle survival curves (p53 wt and MMR-D) was observed. There were no significant differences in survival between the ESMO low-risk and intermediate-risk groups. ProMisE improved the ability to discriminate outcomes compared with ESMO risk stratification. There was substantial overlap (89%) between the p53 abn and high-risk ESMO subgroups; but, otherwise, there were no predictable associations between molecular and ESMO risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular classification of ECs can be achieved using clinically applicable methods and provides independent prognostic information beyond established clinicopathologic risk factors available at diagnosis. Consistent, biologically relevant categorization enables stratification for clinical trials and/or targeted therapy, identification of women who are at increased risk of having Lynch syndrome, and may guide clinical management. Cancer 2017;123:802-13. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations960
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207