MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2992334141 · doi:10.1182/blood.v104.11.415.415

Chromosomal Imbalances in Germinal Center B-Cell-Like and Activated B-Cell-Like Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Influence Gene Expression Signatures and Improve Gene Expression-Based Survival Prediction(the First Two Authors Contributed Equally to This Work).

2004· article· en· W2992334141 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Zettl, Sı́lvia Beà, George W. Wright, Itziar Salaverría, Philipp Jehn, German Ott, Wing-Chung Chan, Elaine S. Jaffe, Dennis D. Weisenburger, Timothy C. Greiner, Jamés O. Armitage, Randy D. Gascoyne, Joseph M. Connors, Thomas M. Grogan, Thomas P. Miller, Richard I. Fisher, Jan Delabie, Stein Kvaløy, Hans Konrad Mueller‐Hermelink, Vı́ctor Moreno, Emilio Montserrat, Wyndham H. Wilson, Louis M. Staudt, Andreas Rosenwald, Elı́as Campo

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaBiologyGerminal centerComparative genomic hybridizationCancer researchChromosomeLarge-cell lymphomaLymphomaBCL6GeneChromosomal translocationMolecular biologyB cellGeneticsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Germinal center B-cell (GCB)-like and activated B-cell (ABC)-like diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) are characterized by different recurrent chromosomal imbalances. In a series of 177 untreated de novo DLBCL analyzed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), GCB-like DLBCL had shown more frequent gains of chromosome 12p/12cen-q14 (22% vs 5%, p=.0025), whereas ABC-like DLBCL had shown more frequent gains of 3/3q27-qter (34% vs 6%; p<0.0001), 18q21 (36% vs 11%;p=0.0002) and losses of 6q21-q23 (36% vs 20%; p=0.0269). We investigated the impact of chromosomal imbalances on the transcription of genes localized in the corresponding chromosomal regions, and on gene expression signatures, as previously defined (Rosenwald et al, N Engl J Med2002;346:1937–1947), as well as on survival. Results: Gains/amplifications of chromosomes 2p, 3q, 12q and 18q resulted in different gene expression patterns depending on the array-defined DLBCL subtype. For example, 18q gains/amplifications correlated with overexpression of P15RS, MADH2, MADH4, LOC51320 and PMAIP1 in GCB-like DLBCL, whereas P15RS, MIZ1, MADH2, ME2, MADH4, LOC51320, MALT1, PMAIP1, BCL2, FVT1 and NFATC1 were overexpressed in ABC-like DLBCL with 18q gains/amplifications (p<0.05). Chromosomal imbalances also were strongly associated with certain alterations of gene expression signatures. Gains of chromosome 7 in GCB-like DLBCL, losses of chromosome 17p13 in ABC-like DLBCL, and gains of chromosome 12 both in GCB- and ABC-like DLBCL resulted in a loss of the T-cell signature (p<0.001). Similarily, ABC-like DLBCL with gains of chromosome 3q but not Xp, or gains of 8q showed a loss of the lymph node signature, whereas ABC-like DLBCL with gains of Xp but not 3q showed a strong lymph node signature (p<0.001). Importantly, chromosomal imbalances were identified (gains of Xp, 3p, and losses of 6q13) that significantly improved the previously-defined gene expression-based outcome predictor for DLBCL patients (Rosenwald et al., NEJM, 2002). Conclusion: In GCB-like and ABC-like DLBCL, chromosomal imbalances lead to subgroup-specific overexpression of genes located within the gained/amplified regions. Chromosomal imbalances furthermore are associated with profound changes in the gene expression signatures in both GCB- and ABC-like DLBCL. Importantly, consideration of chromosomal imbalances significantly improves on the previously-defined gene expression based outcome predictors for DLBCL patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→