MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P5-13-05: Profiling of APOBEC3 dysregulation in breast cancer

2023· article· en· W4322771354 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Hamidi, Azad Khosh, Hamzeh Rahimi, Diako Ebrahimi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFerroptosis and cancer prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerDownregulation and upregulationCancer researchCancerTumor microenvironmentGene expression profilingBiologyCarcinogenesisImmune systemSomatic cellGeneGene expressionMedicineImmunologyGeneticsTumor cells

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract DNA of many breast tumors is barraged by C-to-T/G mutations within TCW (W:T,A). These mutations are attributed to the aberrant expression and activity of APOBEC3 enzymes. They have been shown to account for many driver mutations in genes such as PIK3CA, ERBB2, and PPP2R1A, however their precise source and also their roles in tumor development, evolution, and patient survival are debated. Currently, quantification of APOBEC3 expression changes in tumor cells is confounded by the ubiquitous expression of these enzymes in immune infiltrating cells. In this study, we used a novel quantitative biology approach to determine the expression profiles of APOBEC3 enzymes in breast tumor and tumor microenvironment cells from >1,000 patients. We combined diverse datasets including tumor/matched normal RNAseqs, tumor somatic mutations, cell line RNAseqs and mutations, estimates of tumor purities and immune cell compositions, and expression of purified cell populations to show that in breast cancer there is only a single APOBEC3 dysregulation process. This process is subtype-independent and is represented by APOBEC3B upregulation and and extreme APOBEC3C downregulation. Compared to all other tumor types, breast tumors are affected the most by this process. Citation Format: Hamid Hamidi, Azad Khosh, Hamzeh Rahimi, Diako Ebrahimi. Profiling of APOBEC3 dysregulation in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-13-05.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicFerroptosis and cancer prognosis→French-language works237,207→