Development of a predictive model for stromal content in prostate cancer samples to improve signature performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prostate cancer is heterogeneous in both cellular composition and patient outcome, and development of biomarker signatures to distinguish indolent from aggressive tumours is a high priority. Stroma plays an important role during prostate cancer progression and undergoes histological and transcriptional changes associated with disease. However, identification and validation of stromal markers is limited by a lack of datasets with defined stromal/tumour ratio. We have developed a prostate‐selective signature to estimate the stromal content in cancer samples of mixed cellular composition. We identified stromal‐specific markers from transcriptomic datasets of developmental prostate mesenchyme and prostate cancer stroma. These were experimentally validated in cell lines, datasets of known stromal content, and by immunohistochemistry in tissue samples to verify stromal‐specific expression. Linear models based upon six transcripts were able to infer the stromal content and estimate stromal composition in mixed tissues. The best model had a coefficient of determination R 2 of 0.67. Application of our stromal content estimation model in various prostate cancer datasets led to improved performance of stromal predictive signatures for disease progression and metastasis. The stromal content of prostate tumours varies considerably; consequently, deconvolution of stromal proportion may yield better results than tumour cell deconvolution. We suggest that adjusting expression data for cell composition will improve stromal signature performance and lead to better prognosis and stratification of men with prostate cancer. © 2019 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".