Ovarian cancer and the evolution of subtype classifications using transcriptional profiling†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ovarian cancer is a complex disease with multiple subtypes, each having distinct histopathologies and variable responses to treatment. This review highlights the technological milestones and the studies that have applied them to change our definitions of ovarian cancer. Over the past 50 years, technologies such as microarrays and next-generation sequencing have led to the discovery of molecular alterations that define each of the ovarian cancer subtypes and has enabled further subclassification of the most common subtype, high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). Improvements in mutational profiling have provided valuable insight, such as the ubiquity of TP53 mutations in HGSOC tumors. However, the information derived from these technological advances has also revealed the immense heterogeneity of this disease, from variation between patients to compositional differences within single masses. In looking forward, the emerging technologies for single-cell and spatially resolved transcriptomics will allow us to better understand the cellular composition and structure of tumors and how these contribute to the molecular subtypes. Attempts to incorporate the complexities ovarian cancer has resulted in increasing sophistication of model systems, and the increased precision in molecular profiling of ovarian cancers has already led to the introduction of inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases as a new class of treatments for ovarian cancer with DNA repair deficiencies. Future endeavors to define increasingly accurate classification strategies for ovarian cancer subtypes will allow for confident prediction of disease progression and provide important insight into potentially targetable molecular mechanisms specific to each subtype.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".