Integrating genetic and epigenetic factors in chronic myeloid leukemia risk assessment: toward gene expression-based biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer treatment is constantly evolving from a one-size-fits-all towards bespoke approaches for each patient. In certain solid cancers, including breast and lung, tumor genome profiling has been incorporated into therapeutic decision-making. For chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), while tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy is the standard treatment, current clinical scoring systems cannot accurately predict the heterogeneous treatment outcomes observed in patients. Biomarkers capable of segregating patients according to outcome at diagnosis are needed to improve management, and facilitate enrollment in clinical trials seeking to prevent blast crisis transformation and improve the depth of molecular responses. To this end, gene expression (GE) profiling studies have evaluated whether GE signatures at diagnosis are clinically informative. Patient material from a variety of sources has been profiled using microarrays, RNA sequencing and, more recently, single-cell RNA sequencing. However, differences in the cell types profiled, the technologies used, and the inherent complexities associated with the interpretation of genomic data pose challenges in distilling GE datasets into biomarkers with clinical utility. The goal of this paper is to review previous studies evaluating GE profiling in CML, and explore their potential as risk assessment tools for individualized CML treatment. We also review the contribution that acquired mutations, including those seen in clonal hematopoiesis, make to GE profiles, and how a model integrating contributions of genetic and epigenetic factors in resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors and blast crisis transformation can define a route to GE-based biomarkers. Finally, we outline a four-stage approach for the development of GE-based biomarkers in CML.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".