Cancer Grade Model: a multi-gene machine learning-based risk classification for improving prognosis in breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic stratification of breast cancers remains a challenge to improve clinical decision making. We employ machine learning on breast cancer transcriptomics from multiple studies to link the expression of specific genes to histological grade and classify tumours into a more or less aggressive prognostic type. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Microarray data of 5031 untreated breast tumours spanning 33 published datasets and corresponding clinical data were integrated. A machine learning model based on gradient boosted trees was trained on histological grade-1 and grade-3 samples. The resulting predictive model (Cancer Grade Model, CGM) was applied on samples of grade-2 and unknown-grade (3029) for prognostic risk classification. RESULTS: A 70-gene signature for assessing clinical risk was identified and was shown to be 90% accurate when tested on known histological-grade samples. The predictive framework was validated through survival analysis and showed robust prognostic performance. CGM was cross-referenced with existing genomic tests and demonstrated the competitive predictive power of tumour risk. CONCLUSIONS: CGM is able to classify tumours into better-defined prognostic categories without employing information on tumour size, stage, or subgroups. The model offers means to improve prognosis and support the clinical decision and precision treatments, thereby potentially contributing to preventing underdiagnosis of high-risk tumours and minimising over-treatment of low-risk disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".