Integrative Genomic Analysis of Cholangiocarcinoma Identifies Distinct IDH-Mutant Molecular Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Cell Reports 18, 2780–2794; March 14, 2017) In the originally published version of this article, the sample names in Figure 5D were incorrectly ordered during assembly of the heatmap. The sample order has now been corrected online, and the corrected figure appears below. The authors regret this error. Also, due to a misunderstanding prior to publication, the TCGA network authors were not properly indexed in PubMed. This has now been corrected online.Figure 5ARID1A Is Hypermethylated and Has Low Expression in the IDH COCA (original)View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) Integrative Genomic Analysis of Cholangiocarcinoma Identifies Distinct IDH-Mutant Molecular ProfilesFarshidfar et al.Cell ReportsMarch 14, 2017In BriefFarshidfar et al. present The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) marker analysis of cholangiocarcinoma. Through multi-platform analyses, they identify a distinct subtype enriched for IDH mutants. This subtype shows increased mitochondrial and decreased chromatin modifier gene expression, including potential epigenetic silencing of ARID1A. Other IDH-mutant liver cancers molecularly resemble cholangiocarcinoma. Full-Text PDF Open Access
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) | 0.002 | 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".