Combining gene expression signature with clinical features for survival stratification of gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The AJCC staging system is considered as the golden standard in clinical practice. However, it remains some pitfalls in assessing the prognosis of gastric cancer (GC) patients with similar clinicopathological characteristics. We aim to develop a new clinic and genetic risk score (CGRS) to improve the prognosis prediction of GC patients. We established genetic risk score (GRS) based on nine-gene signature including APOD, CCDC92, CYS1, GSDME, ST8SIA5, STARD3NL, TIMEM245, TSPYL5, and VAT1 based on the gene expression profiles of the training set from the Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG) cohort by LASSO-Cox regression algorithms. CGRS was established by integrating GRS with clinical risk score (CRS) derived from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. GRS and CGRS dichotomized GC patients into high and low risk groups with significantly different prognosis in four independent cohorts with different data types, such as microarray, RNA sequencing and qRT-PCR (all HR > 1, all P < 0.001). Both GRS and CGRS were prognostic signatures independent of the AJCC staging system. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that area under ROC curve of CGRS was larger than that of the AJCC staging system in most cohorts we studied. Nomogram and web tool (http://39.100.117.92/CGRS/) based on CGRS were developed for clinicians to conveniently assess GC prognosis in clinical practice. CGRS integrating genetic signature with clinical features shows strong robustness in predicting GC prognosis, and can be easily applied in clinical practice through the web application.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".