Novel Immune Subtypes Identification of HER2 Positive Breast Cancer Based On Immunogenomic Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: HER2 positive BC is heterogeneous. But few studies discussed the classification of HER2 positive BC based on immune-related signatures.Methods: Using two publicly BC genomics datasets, we classified HER2 positive BC based on 33 immune-related signatures and used unsupervised machine learning methods to predict and perform the classification.Results: We grouped three HER2 positive BC subtypes that we called Immune-High (IM-H), Immune-Medium (IM-M), and Immune-Low (IM-L), and manifested this categorization was predictable, duplicable and reliable by analyzing another dataset. Compared to other subtypes, IM-H had a higher immune cell infiltration level and stronger anti-tumor immune activities, as well as better clinical survival outcome. Besides these signatures, there were some cancer-related pathways which were hyperactivated in IM-H, including cytokine-cytokine receptor interactions, antigen processing and presentation pathways, natural killer cell-mediated cytotoxicity, Th1 and Th2 cell differentiation, chemokine signaling pathway, Th17 cell differentiation, B and T cell receptor signaling, NF-kappa B signaling, PD-L1 expression and PD-1 checkpoint pathway in cancer, TNF signaling, IL-17 signaling, NOD-like receptor signaling and Toll-like receptor signaling. By contrast, IM-L showed depressed immune-related signatures and enhanced activation of lycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchor biosynthesis and mismatch repair. Moreover, we discovered a gene co-expression network focused on eight transcription factor genes (EOMES, TBX21, GFI1, IRF4, POU2AF1, CIITA, FOXP3 and TOX) and one tumor suppress gene (PRF1), which were closely related with tumor immune.Conclusion: We identified three HER2 positive BC subtypes based on immune-related signatures, which had potential clinical implications and promoted the optimal stratification of HER2 positive BC responsive to immunotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".