An miRNA Signature Predicts Grading of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Grading pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) via mitotic rate and Ki-67 index score is complicated by interobserver variability. Differentially expressed miRNAs (DEMs) are useful for predicting tumour progression and may be useful for grading. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve PNENs were selected. Four patients had grade (G) 1 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PNETs); 4 had G2 PNETs; and 4 had G3 PNENs (2 PNETs and 2 pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas). Samples were profiled using the miRNA NanoString Assay. RESULTS: There were 6 statistically significant DEMs between different grades of PNENs. MiR1285-5p was the sole miRNA differentially expressed (p=0.03) between G1 and G2 PNETs. Six statistically significant DEMs (miR135a-5p, miR200a-3p, miR3151-5p, miR-345-5p, miR548d-5p and miR9-5p) (p<0.05) were identified between G1 PNETs and G3 PNENs. Finally, 5 DEMs (miR155-5p, miR15b-5p, miR222-3p, miR548d-5p and miR9-5p) (p<0.05) were identified between G2 PNETs and G3 PNENs. CONCLUSION: The identified miRNA candidates are concordant with their patterns of dysregulation in other tumour types. The reliability of these DEMs as discriminators of PNEN grades support further investigations using larger patient populations.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".