Combining TMEM Doorway Score and MenaCalc Score Improves the Prediction of Distant Recurrence Risk in HR+/HER2− Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: to develop several digital pathology-based machine vision algorithms for combining TMEM and MenaCalc scores and determine if a combination of these biomarkers improves the ability to predict development of distant metastasis over and above that of either biomarker alone. Methods: This retrospective study included a subset of 130 patients (65 patients with no recurrence and 65 patients with a recurrence at 5 years) from the Calgary Tamoxifen cohort of breast cancer patients. Patients had confirmed invasive breast cancer and received adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Of the 130 patients, 86 cases were suitable for analysis in this study. Sequential sections of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded patient samples were stained for TMEM doorways (immunohistochemistry triple staining) and MenaCalc (immunofluorescence staining). Stained sections were imaged, aligned, and then scored for TMEM doorways and MenaCalc. Different ways of combining TMEM doorway and MenaCalc scores were evaluated and compared to identify the best performing combined marker by using the restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference method. Results: the best performing combined marker gave an RMST difference of 5.27 years (95% CI: 1.71–8.37), compared to 3.56 years (95% CI: 0.95–6.1) for the associated standalone TMEM doorway analysis and 2.94 years (95% CI: 0.25–5.87) for the associated standalone MenaCalc analysis. Conclusions: combining TMEM doorway and MenaCalc scores as a new biomarker improves prognostication over that observed with TMEM doorway or MenaCalc Score alone in this cohort of 86 patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".