MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3191863614 · doi:10.1101/2021.08.06.455345

Immunohistochemical assays for bladder cancer molecular subtyping: Optimizing parsimony and performance using Lund taxonomy

2021· preprint· en· W3191863614 on OpenAlexafffund
Céline Hardy, Hamid Ghaedi, Ava Slotman, Gottfrid Sjödahl, R. J. Gooding, David M. Berman, Chelsea Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchGovernment of OntarioBladder Cancer CanadaCancer Research Society
KeywordsSubtypingImmunohistochemistryBladder cancerDecision treePathologyComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Transcriptomic and proteomic profiling reliably classifies bladder cancers into luminal and basal molecular subtypes. Based on their prognostic and predictive associations, these subtypes may improve clinical management of bladder cancers. However, the complexity of published subtyping algorithms has limited their translation into practice. Here we optimize and validate compact subtyping algorithms based on the Lund taxonomy. We reanalyzed immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression data of muscle-invasive bladder cancer samples from Lund 2017 (n=193) and 2012 (n=76) cohorts. We characterized and quantified IHC expression patterns, and determined the simplest, most accurate decision tree models to identify subtypes. We tested the utility of a previously published algorithm using routine antibody assays commonly available in surgical pathology laboratories (GATA3, KRT5 and p16) to identify basal/luminal subtypes and to distinguish between luminal subtypes, Urothelial-Like (Uro) and Genomically Unstable (GU). We determined the dominant decision tree classifiers using four-fold cross-validation with separate uniformly distributed train (75%) and validation (25%) sets. Using the three-antibody algorithm resulted in 86-95% accuracy across training and validation sets for identifying basal/luminal subtypes, and 67-86% accuracy for basal/Uro/GU subtypes. Although antibody assays for KRT14 and RB1 are not routinely used in pathology practice, these features achieved the simplest and most accurate models to identify basal/luminal and Uro/GU/basal subtypes, achieving 93-96% and 85-86% accuracies, respectively. When translated to a more complex model using eight antibody assays, accuracy was comparable to simplified models, with 86% (train) and 82% (validation). We conclude that a simple immunohistochemical classifier can accurately identify luminal (Uro, GU) and basal subtypes and pave the way for clinical implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→