MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754902956 · doi:10.1177/1176935117730016

Gene-Set Reduction for Analysis of Major and Minor Gleason Scores Based on Differential Gene-Set Expressions and Biological Pathways in Prostate Cancer

2017· article· en· W2754902956 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstateMicroarrayOncologyCancerMicroarray analysis techniquesInternal medicineBioinformaticsGeneBiologyGene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gleason score (GS) plays an important role in prostate cancer detection and treatment. It is calculated based on a sum between its major and minor components, each ranging from 1 to 5, assigned after examination of sample cells taken from each side of the prostate gland during biopsy. A total GS of at least 7 is associated with more aggressive prostate cancer. However, it is still unclear how prostate cancer outcomes differ for various distributions of GS between its major and minor components. This article applies Significance Analysis of Microarray for Gene-Set Reduction to a real microarray study of patients with prostate cancer and identifies 13 core genes differentially expressed between patients with a major GS of 3 and a minor GS of 4, or (3,4), vs patients with a combination of (4,3), starting from a less aggressive GS combination of (3,3), and moving toward a more aggressive one of (4,4) via gray areas of (3,4) and (4,3). The resulting core genes may improve understanding of prostate cancer in patients with a total GS of 7, the most common grade and most challenging with respect to prognosis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.272 · 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