Tumour budding, poorly differentiated clusters, and T-cell response in colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Tumour budding and poorly differentiated clusters (PDC) represent forms of tumour invasion. We hypothesised that T-cell densities (reflecting adaptive anti-tumour immunity) might be inversely associated with tumour budding and PDC in colorectal carcinoma. Methods Utilising 915 colon and rectal carcinomas in two U.S.-wide prospective cohort studies, and multiplex immunofluorescence combined with machine learning algorithms, we assessed CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45RO (PTPRC), and FOXP3 co-expression patterns in lymphocytes. Tumour budding and PDC at invasive fronts were quantified by digital pathology and image analysis using the International tumour Budding Consensus Conference criteria. Using covariate data of 4,420 incident colorectal cancer cases, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was integrated with multivariable logistic regression analysis that assessed the association of T-cell subset densities with tumour budding and PDC while adjusting for selection bias due to tissue availability and potential confounders, including microsatellite instability status. Findings Tumour budding counts were inversely associated with density of CD3 + CD8 + [lowest vs. highest: multivariable odds ratio (OR), 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.35–0.70; P trend < 0.001] and CD3 + CD8 + CD45RO + cells (lowest vs. highest: multivariable OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31–0.63; P trend < 0.001) in tumour epithelial region. Tumour budding levels were associated with higher colorectal cancer-specific mortality (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.57–2.89; P trend < 0.001) in Cox regression analysis. There were no significant associations of PDC with T-cell subsets. Interpretation Tumour epithelial naïve and memory cytotoxic T cell densities are inversely associated with tumour budding at invasive fronts, suggesting that cytotoxic anti-tumour immunity suppresses tumour microinvasion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".