Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is generally treated with conventional therapies, including chemotherapy and radiation. These methods, however, are not specific to cancer cells and instead attack every cell present, including normal cells. Personalized therapies provide more efficient treatment options as they target the individual's genetic makeup. The goal of this study was to identify the frequency of causal genetic mutations across a variety of lung cancer subtypes in the earlier stages. 833 samples of non-small cell lung cancer from 799 patients who received resection of their lung cancer, were selected for molecular analysis of six known mutations, including EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, HER2 and ALK. A SNaPshot assay was used for point mutations and fragment analysis searched for insertions and deletions. ALK was evaluated by IHC +/- FISH. Statistical analysis was performed to determine correlations between molecular and clinical/pathological patient data. None of the tested variants were identified in most (66.15%) of cases. The observed frequencies among the total samples vs. only the adenocarcinoma cases were notable different, with the highest frequency being the KRAS mutation (24.49% vs. 35.55%), followed by EGFR (6.96% vs. 10.23%), PIK3CA (1.20% vs. 0.9%), BRAF (1.08% vs. 1.62%), ALK (0.12% vs. 0.18%), while the lowest was the HER2 mutation (0% for both). The statistical analysis yielded correlations between presence of a mutation with gender, cancer type, vascular invasion and smoking history. The outcome of this study will provide data that helps stratify patient prognosis and supports development of more precise treatments, resulting in improved outcomes for future lung cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".