Peripheral blood transcriptome identifies high-risk benign and malignant breast lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood transcriptome profiling is a potentially important tool for disease detection. We utilize this technique in a case-control study to identify candidate transcriptomic biomarkers able to differentiate women with breast lesions from normal controls. METHODS: Whole blood samples were collected from 50 women with high-risk breast lesions, 57 with breast cancers and 44 controls (151 samples). Blood gene expression profiling was carried out using microarray hybridization. We identified blood gene expression signatures using AdaBoost, and constructed a predictive model differentiating breast lesions from controls. Model performance was then characterized by AUC sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Biomarker biological processes and functions were analyzed for clues to the pathogenesis of breast lesions. RESULTS: Ten gene biomarkers were identified (YWHAQ, BCLAF1, WSB1, PBX2, DDIT4, LUC7L3, FKBP1A, APP, HERC2P2, FAM126B). A ten-gene panel predictive model showed discriminatory power in the test set (sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 84.2%, accuracy: 93.5%, AUC: 0.99). These biomarkers were involved in apoptosis, TGF-beta signaling, adaptive immune system regulation, gene transcription and post-transcriptional protein modification. CONCLUSION: A promising method for the detection of breast lesions is reported. This study also sheds light on breast cancer/immune system interactions, providing clues to new targets for breast cancer immune therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".