MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311377226 · doi:10.3390/cells11244039

RAC1, a Potential Diagnostic and Prognostic Marker for Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma

2022· article· en· W4311377226 on OpenAlexaff
Xue Wu, Yuan Li, Wandong Zhang, Jing Zhang, Baoan Chen, Zheng Ge

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSoutheast UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gene changes for diagnosis and prognosis of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) still remain unclear. RAC1 was reported to be asso;ciated with the B cell receptor signal pathway, but its relations with DLBCL have not yet been systematically explored. In this study, we have conducted molecular, bioinformatics and clinical analyses by using publicly available data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Wilcoxon signed-rank test and logistic regression were performed to evaluate the association between RAC1 and clinical features in patients. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to examine the impacts of RAC1 expression level on overall survival, and a nomogram was performed to illustrate the correlation between RAC1 and the risk of DLBCL. Our results revealed that the expression level of RAC1 in DLBCL was higher than that in normal tissues or lymphadenitis. High-level expression of RAC1 was significantly associated with clinical stage, as well as being an independent factor affecting overall survival. RAC1 was negatively correlated with Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK). The association between RAC1 gene expression and the risk of DLBCL was presented in a nomogram. In conclusion, RAC1 expression patterns may be used to predict the development and prognosis of DLBCL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207