A Consensus Molecular Classification of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is a molecularly diverse disease with heterogeneous clinical outcomes. Several molecular classifications have been proposed, but the diversity of their subtype sets impedes their clinical application. OBJECTIVE: To achieve an international consensus on MIBC molecular subtypes that reconciles the published classification schemes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used 1750 MIBC transcriptomic profiles from 16 published datasets and two additional cohorts. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We performed a network-based analysis of six independent MIBC classification systems to identify a consensus set of molecular classes. Association with survival was assessed using multivariable Cox models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We report the results of an international effort to reach a consensus on MIBC molecular subtypes. We identified a consensus set of six molecular classes: luminal papillary (24%), luminal nonspecified (8%), luminal unstable (15%), stroma-rich (15%), basal/squamous (35%), and neuroendocrine-like (3%). These consensus classes differ regarding underlying oncogenic mechanisms, infiltration by immune and stromal cells, and histological and clinical characteristics, including outcomes. We provide a single-sample classifier that assigns a consensus class label to a tumor sample's transcriptome. Limitations of the work are retrospective clinical data collection and a lack of complete information regarding patient treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus system offers a robust framework that will enable testing and validation of predictive biomarkers in future prospective clinical trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: Bladder cancers are heterogeneous at the molecular level, and scientists have proposed several classifications into sets of molecular classes. While these classifications may be useful to stratify patients for prognosis or response to treatment, a consensus classification would facilitate the clinical use of molecular classes. Conducted by multidisciplinary expert teams in the field, this study proposes such a consensus and provides a tool for applying the consensus classification in the clinical setting.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".