MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214333524 · doi:10.1155/2021/7918693

Identification of Autophagy‐Related Prognostic Signature and Analysis of Immune Cell Infiltration in Low‐Grade Gliomas

2021· article· en· W3214333524 on OpenAlexaff
Qingli Quan, Xinxin Xiong, Shanyun Wu, Meixing Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutophagy in Disease and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutophagyGliomaImmune systemOncologyGene signatureMedicineGeneInternal medicineCancer researchBiologyImmunologyApoptosisGene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autophagy plays an important role in cancer. Many studies have demonstrated that autophagy‐related genes (ARGs) can act as a prognostic signature for some cancers, but little has been known in low‐grade gliomas (LGG). In our study, we aimed to establish a prognostical model based on ARGs and find prognostic risk‐related key genes in LGG. In the present study, a prognostic signature was constructed based on a total of 8 ARGs (MAPK8IP1, EEF2, GRID2, BIRC5, DLC1, NAMPT, GRID1, and TP73). It was revealed that the higher the risk score, the worse was the prognosis. Time‐dependent ROC analysis showed that the risk score could precisely predict the prognosis of LGG patients. Additionally, four key genes (TGF β 2, SERPING1, SERPINE1, and TIMP1) were identified and found significantly associated with OS of LGG patients. Besides, they were also discovered to be strongly related to six types of immune cells which infiltrated in LGG tumor. Taken together, the present study demonstrated the promising potential of the ARG risk score formula as an independent factor for LGG prediction. It also provided the autophagy‐related signature of prognosis and potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of LGG.

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 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 score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.341 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicAutophagy in Disease and TherapyFrench-language works237,207