Refining diffuse large B-cell lymphoma subgroups using integrated analysis of molecular profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gene expression profiling (GEP), next-generation sequencing (NGS) and copy number variation (CNV) analysis have led to an increasingly detailed characterization of the genomic profiles of DLBCL. The aim of this study was to perform a fully integrated analysis of mutational, genomic, and expression profiles to refine DLBCL subtypes. A comparison of our model with two recently published integrative DLBCL classifiers was carried out, in order to best reflect the current state of genomic subtypes. METHODS: 223 patients with de novo DLBCL from the prospective, multicenter and randomized LNH-03B LYSA clinical trials were included. GEP data was obtained using Affymetrix GeneChip arrays, mutational profiles were established by Lymphopanel NGS targeting 34 key genes, CNV analysis was obtained by array CGH, and FISH and IHC were performed. Unsupervised independent component analysis (ICA) was applied to GEP data and integrated analysis of multi-level molecular data associated with each component (gene signature) was performed. FINDINGS: ICA identified 38 components reflecting transcriptomic variability across our DLBCL cohort. Many of the components were closely related to well-known DLBCL features such as cell-of-origin, stromal and MYC signatures. A component linked to gain of 19q13 locus, among other genomic alterations, was significantly correlated with poor OS and PFS. Through this integrated analysis, a high degree of heterogeneity was highlighted among previously described DLBCL subtypes. INTERPRETATION: The results of this integrated analysis enable a global and multi-level view of DLBCL, as well as improve our understanding of DLBCL subgroups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".