Analysis of the TCGA Dataset Reveals that Subsites of Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Are Molecularly Distinct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) from different subsites have distinct presentations and prognosis. In this study, we carried out a multiomic comparison of LSCC subsites. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) LSCC cohort was analyzed in the R statistical environment for differences between supraglottic and glottic cancers in single nucleotide variations (SNVs), copy number alterations (CNAs), mRNA abundance, protein abundance, pathway overrepresentation, tumor microenvironment (TME), hypoxia status, and patient outcome. Supraglottic cancers had significantly higher overall and smoking-associated SNV mutational load. Pathway analysis revealed upregulation of muscle related pathways in glottic cancer and neural pathways in supraglottic cancer. Proteins involved in cancer relevant signaling pathways including PI3K/Akt/mTOR, the cell cycle, and PDL1 were differentially abundant between subsites. Glottic and supraglottic tumors have different molecular profiles, which may partially account for differences in presentation and response to therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".