X or Y Cancer: An Extensive Analysis of Sex Differences in Lung Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cellular metabolism is a tightly controlled process during which cell growth and survival are maintained. Lung cancer is a disease with clear sex differences, where female patients have better survival rates than males. Evidence of sex differences is demonstrated in cancer risk, prognosis and response to different therapies, yet a sex-specific approach to cancer studies is not widely considered. These different tumour characteristics attributed to sex that impact disease outcome, including constitutional genetic and somatic molecular differences, make it essential to assess viral and hormonal influences. Methods: In silico analysis of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) TCGA data, including K-means clustering algorithm, dimensional reduction with principal component analysis and differential expression analysis using EdgeR (p < 0.05), were used to explore some robust sex differences in LUAD that exist in core signalling pathways and metabolic processes between males and females. The correlation of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) expression with immune abundance in the LUAD cohort was analysed on TIMER2.0 and adjusted by tumour purity utilising Cox proportional hazard. Multiple factorial analysis heatmap visualisation was used to examine endogenous steroid hormonal effects on LUAD patients with different smoking status and age groups. Results: We found 161 DEGs showing key differences in regulation of immune system and cellular homeostasis, key elements of divergent cancer progression, between the two sexes. We also found male and female LUAD patients to favour different metabolic intermediates for energy production to support tumourigenesis. Additionally, high levels of Tregs accompanied by DEGs correlated with better LUAD prognosis, and circulating hormonal transcriptional targets affect proliferation and progression in males and females differently. Finally, we examined the role of oestrogen protection in men and pre-/postmenopausal women. Conclusions: Further studies should focus on sex-specific changes and investigate sex-specific gene regulatory networks of these DEGs. Several lifestyle factors, including tobacco smoking and diet, differ between males and females. These factors might affect metabolic pathways and can influence the activity of epigenetic regulators, resulting in significant global epigenetic changes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".