Age influences on the molecular presentation of tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is often called a disease of aging. There are numerous ways in which cancer epidemiology and behaviour change with the age of the patient. The molecular bases for these relationships remain largely underexplored. To characterise them, we analyse age-associations in the nuclear and mitochondrial somatic mutational landscape of 20,033 tumours across 35 tumour-types. Age influences both the number of mutations in a tumour (0.077 mutations per megabase per year) and their evolutionary timing. Specific mutational signatures are associated with age, reflecting differences in exogenous and endogenous oncogenic processes such as a greater influence of tobacco use in the tumours of younger patients, but higher activity of DNA damage repair signatures in those of older patients. We find that known cancer driver genes such as CDKN2A and CREBBP are mutated in age-associated frequencies, and these alter the transcriptome and predict for clinical outcomes. These effects are most striking in brain cancers where alterations like SUFU loss and ATRX mutation are age-dependent prognostic biomarkers. Using three cancer datasets, we show that age shapes the somatic mutational landscape of cancer, with clinical implications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".