MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Hierarchical Machine Learning Model to Discover Gleason Grade Group-specific Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer

2019· preprint· en· W3121596517 on OpenAlexafffund
Osama Hamzeh, Abedalrhman Alkhateeb, Julia Zheng, Srinath Kandalam, Crystal Lueng, Govindaraja Aikukke, Dora Cavallo‐Medved, Nallasivam Palanisamy, Luis Rueda

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstateCohortOncologyArtificial intelligenceDiseaseCancerMachine learningInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1) Background: One of the most common cancer that affects men worldwide and North American men is prostate cancer. Gleason score is a pathological grading system to examine the potential aggressiveness of the disease in the prostate tissue. The advancement in computing and next-generation sequencing technology now allow us to study the genomic profiles of patients in association with their different Gleason score more accurately and effectively. 2) Methods: In this study, we used a novel machine learning method to analyze gene expression of prostate tumors with different Gleason scores, and identify potential genetic biomarkers for each Gleason group. We obtained a publicly-available RNA-Seq dataset of a cohort of 104 prostate cancer patients from the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repository, and categorized patients based on their Gleason scores to create a hierarchy of disease progression. A hierarchical model with standard classifiers in different Gleason groups, also known as nodes, was developed to identify and predict nodes based on their mRNA or gene expression. In each node, patient samples were analyzed via class imbalance and hybrid feature selection techniques to build the prediction model. The outcome from analysis of each node is a set of genes that can differentiate each Gleason group from the remaining groups. To validate the proposed method, the set of identified genes are used to classify a second dataset of 499 prostate cancer patients collected from cBioportal [1]. 3) Results: The overall accuracy of applying this novel method to the first dataset was 93.3%, and further validated to 87% accuracy using the second dataset. This method also identified genes that were not previously reported as potential biomarkers for specific Gleason groups. In particular, PIAS3 was identified as a potential biomarker for Gleason score 4+3=7, and UBE2V2 for Gleason score 6. 4) Insight: Previous reports show that the genes predicted by this newly proposed method strongly correlate with prostate cancer development and progression. Furthermore, pathway analysis shows that both PIAS3 and UBE2V2 share similar protein interaction pathways, the JAK/STAT signaling process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207