Tumor molecular differences associated with outcome disparities of Black patients with head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have demonstrated disparate outcomes by race and ethnicity. Beyond known associations with socioeconomic variables, whether these are also associated with differences in tumor molecular composition has thus far been poorly explored. METHODS: We downloaded clinical and multiplatform molecular data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and other published studies. These were compared between non-Hispanic Black (n = 43) and White (n = 354) patients with non-HPV-related tumors, using multivariable models. Publicly available validation cohorts were used. RESULTS: Black patients had poorer progression-free survival than White patients. Tumors of Black patients had greater copy number aberrations, and increased SFRP1 methylation and miRNA-mediated PRG4 silencing associated with poor survival. PI3K/AkT/mTOR pathway proteins were differentially expressed. CONCLUSIONS: There are molecular differences between tumors of Black and White patients that may partially account for differences in survival. These may inform targeted treatment decisions to achieve equitable outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".