An Integrative Approach for Identifying Network Biomarkers of Breast Cancer Subtypes Using Genomic, Interactomic, and Transcriptomic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is a complex disease that can be classified into at least 10 different molecular subtypes. Appropriate diagnosis of specific subtypes is critical for ensuring the best possible patient treatment and response to therapy. Current computational methods for determining the subtypes are based on identifying differentially expressed genes (i.e., biomarkers) that can best discriminate the subtypes. Such approaches, however, are known to be unreliable since they yield different biomarker sets when applied to data sets from different studies. Gathering knowledge about the functional relationship among genes will identify "network biomarkers" that will enrich the criteria for biomarker selection. Cancer network biomarkers are subnetworks of functionally related genes that "work in concert" to perform functions associated with a tumorigenic. We propose a machine learning framework that can be used to identify network biomarkers and driver genes for each specific breast cancer subtype. Our results show that the resulting network biomarkers can separate one subtype from the others with very high accuracy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".