The Prognostic Role of Macrophage Polarization in the Colorectal Cancer Microenvironment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Macrophages are among the most common cells in the colorectal cancer microenvironment, but their prognostic significance is incompletely understood. Using multiplexed immunofluorescence for CD68, CD86, IRF5, MAF, MRC1 (CD206), and KRT (cytokeratins) combined with digital image analysis and machine learning, we assessed the polarization spectrum of tumor-associated macrophages in 931 colorectal carcinomas. We then applied Cox proportional hazards regression to assess prognostic survival associations of intraepithelial and stromal densities of M1-like and M2-like macrophages while controlling for potential confounders, including stage and microsatellite instability status. We found that high tumor stromal density of M2-like macrophages was associated with worse cancer-specific survival, whereas tumor stromal density of M1-like macrophages was not significantly associated with better cancer-specific survival. High M1:M2 density ratio in tumor stroma was associated with better cancer-specific survival. Overall macrophage densities in tumor intraepithelial or stromal regions were not prognostic. These findings suggested that macrophage polarization state, rather than their overall density, was associated with cancer-specific survival, with M1- and M2-like macrophage phenotypes exhibiting distinct prognostic roles. These results highlight the utility of a multimarker strategy to assess the macrophage polarization at single-cell resolution within the tumor microenvironment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".