Gene Expression (mRNA) Markers for Differentiating between Malignant and Benign Follicular Thyroid Tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinguishing between follicular thyroid cancer (FTC) and follicular thyroid adenoma (FTA) constitutes a long-standing diagnostic problem resulting in equivocal histopathological diagnoses. There is therefore a need for additional molecular markers. To identify molecular differences between FTC and FTA, we analyzed the gene expression microarray data of 52 follicular neoplasms. We also performed a meta-analysis involving 14 studies employing high throughput methods (365 follicular neoplasms analyzed). Based on these two analyses, we selected 18 genes differentially expressed between FTA and FTC. We validated them by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in an independent set of 71 follicular neoplasms from formaldehyde-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue material. We confirmed differential expression for 7 genes (CPQ, PLVAP, TFF3, ACVRL1, ZFYVE21, FAM189A2, and CLEC3B). Finally, we created a classifier that distinguished between FTC and FTA with an accuracy of 78%, sensitivity of 76%, and specificity of 80%, based on the expression of 4 genes (CPQ, PLVAP, TFF3, ACVRL1). In our study, we have demonstrated that meta-analysis is a valuable method for selecting possible molecular markers. Based on our results, we conclude that there might exist a plausible limit of gene classifier accuracy of approximately 80%, when follicular tumors are discriminated based on formalin-fixed postoperative material.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".