Transcriptomic biomarkers for predicting response to neoadjuvant treatment in oesophageal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oesophageal cancer is a devastating disease with poor outcomes and is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. In the setting of resectable disease, there is clear evidence that neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy result in improved survival. Disappointingly, only 15%-30% of patients obtain a histopathological response to neoadjuvant therapy, often at the expense of significant toxicity. There are no predictive biomarkers in routine clinical use in this setting and the ability to stratify patients for treatment could dramatically improve outcomes. In this review, we aim to outline current progress in evaluating predictive transcriptomic biomarkers for neoadjuvant therapy in oesophageal cancer and discuss the challenges facing biomarker development in this setting. We place these issues in the wider context of recommendations for biomarker development and reporting. The majority of studies focus on messenger RNA (mRNA) and microRNA (miRNA) biomarkers. These studies report a range of different genes involved in a wide variety of pathways and biological processes, and this is explained to a large extent by the different platforms and analysis methods used. Many studies are also vastly underpowered so are not suitable for identifying a candidate biomarker. Multiple molecular subtypes of oesophageal cancer have been proposed, although little is known about how these relate to clinical outcomes. We anticipate that the accumulating wealth of genomic and transcriptomic data and clinical trial collaborations in the coming years will provide unique opportunities to stratify patients in this poor-prognosis disease and recommend that future biomarker development incorporates well-designed retrospective and prospective analyses.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".