Molecular intrinsic versus clinical subtyping in breast cancer: A comprehensive review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease manifesting diversity at the molecular, histological and clinical level. The development of breast cancer classification was centered on informing clinical decisions. The current approach to the classification of breast cancer, which categorizes this disease into clinical subtypes based on the detection of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and proliferation marker Ki67, is not ideal. This is manifested as a heterogeneity of therapeutic responses and outcomes within the clinical subtypes. The newer classification model, based on gene expression profiling (intrinsic subtyping) informs about transcriptional responses downstream from IHC single markers, revealing deeper appreciation for the disease heterogeneity and capturing tumor biology in a more comprehensive way than an expression of a single protein or gene alone. While accumulating evidences suggest that intrinsic subtypes provide clinically relevant information beyond clinical surrogates, it is imperative to establish whether the current conventional immunohistochemistry-based clinical subtyping approach could be improved by gene expression profiling and if this approach has a potential to translate into clinical practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it