MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089064400 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.511071

Predicting Relapse in Patients With Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) Using a Deep-Learning Approach

2020· article· en· W3089064400 on OpenAlexafffund
Guangyuan Yu, Xuefei Li, Ting-Fang He, Tina Gruosso, Dongmei Zuo, Margarita Souleimanova, Valentina Muñoz Ramos, Atilla Ömeroğlu, Sarkis Meterissian, Marie-Christine Guiot, Yang Li, Yuan Yuan, Morag Park, Peter P. Lee, Herbert Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersUniversity of TorontoQuébec Consortium for Drug DiscoveryMcGill University Health CentreV Foundation for Cancer ResearchStand Up To CancerFaculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityMcGill UniversityBreast Cancer Research FoundationNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBreast cancerTriple-negative breast cancerTumor-infiltrating lymphocytesCohortMedicineCancerOncologyInternal medicineCD8Machine learningArtificial intelligenceImmunologyComputer scienceImmunotherapyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abundance and/or location of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), especially CD8+ T cells, in solid tumors can serve as a prognostic indicator in various types of cancer. However, it is often difficult to select an appropriate threshold value in order to stratify patients into well-defined risk groups. It is also important to select appropriate tumor regions to quantify the abundance of TILs. On the other hand, machine-learning approaches can stratify patients in an unbiased and automatic fashion. Based on immunofluorescence (IF) images of CD8+ T lymphocytes and cancer cells, we develop a machine-learning approach which can predict the risk of relapse for patients with Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). Tumor-section images from 9 patients with poor outcome and 15 patients with good outcome were used as a training set. Tumor-section images of 29 patients in an independent cohort were used to test the predictive power of our algorithm. In the test cohort, 6 (out of 29) patients who belong to the poor-outcome group were all correctly identified by our algorithm; for the 23 (out of 29) patients who belong to the good-outcome group, 17 were correctly predicted with some evidence that improvement is possible if other measures, such as the grade of tumors, are factored in. Our approach does not involve arbitrarily-defined metrics and can be applied to other types of cancer in which the abundance/location of CD8+ T lymphocytes/other types of cells is an indicator of prognosis.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207