An Eight-CircRNA Assessment Model for Predicting Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a high morbidity malignancy in males, and biochemical recurrence (BCR) may appear after the surgery. Our study is designed to build up a risk score model using circular RNA sequencing data for PCa. The dataset is from the GEO database, using a cohort of 144 patients in Canada. We removed the low abundance circRNAs (FPKM < 1) and obtained 546 circRNAs for the next step. BCR-related circRNAs were selected by Logistic regression using the “survival” and “survminer” R package. Least absolute shrinkage and selector operation (LASSO) regression with 10-fold cross-validation and penalty was used to construct a risk score model by “glmnet” R software package. In total, eight circRNAs (including circ_30029, circ_117300, circ_176436, circ_112897, circ_112897, circ_178252, circ_115617, circ_14736, and circ_17720) were involved in our risk score model. Further, we employed differentially expressed mRNAs between high and low risk score groups. The following Gene Ontology (GO) analysis were visualized by Omicshare Online tools. As per the GO analysis results, tumor immune microenvironment related pathways are significantly enriched. “CIBERSORT” and “ESTIMATE” R package were used to detect tumor-infiltrating immune cells and compare the level of microenvironment scores between high and low risk score groups. What’s more, we verified two of eight circRNA’s (circ_14736 and circ_17720) circular characteristics and tested their biological function with qPCR and CCK8 in vitro . circ_14736 and circ_17720 were detected in exosomes of PCa patients’ plasma. This is the first bioinformatics study to establish a prognosis model for prostate cancer using circRNA. These circRNAs were associated with CD8 + T cell activities and may serve as a circRNA-based liquid biopsy panel for disease 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".