Widespread hypertranscription in aggressive human cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancers are often defined by the dysregulation of specific transcriptional programs; however, the importance of global transcriptional changes is less understood. Hypertranscription is the genome-wide increase in RNA output. Hypertranscription's prevalence, underlying drivers, and prognostic significance are undefined in primary human cancer. This is due, in part, to limitations of expression profiling methods, which assume equal RNA output between samples. Here, we developed a computational method to directly measure hypertranscription in 7494 human tumors, spanning 31 cancer types. Hypertranscription is ubiquitous across cancer, especially in aggressive disease. It defines patient subgroups with worse survival, even within well-established subtypes. Our data suggest that loss of transcriptional suppression underpins the hypertranscriptional phenotype. Single-cell analysis reveals hypertranscriptional clones, which dominate transcript production regardless of their size. Last, patients with hypertranscribed mutations have improved response to immune checkpoint therapy. Our results provide fundamental insights into gene dysregulation across human cancers and may prove useful in identifying patients who would benefit from novel therapies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".