Data from Consensus on Molecular Subtypes of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: The majority of ovarian carcinomas are of high-grade serous histology, which is associated with poor prognosis. Surgery and chemotherapy are the mainstay of treatment, and molecular characterization is necessary to lead the way to targeted therapeutic options. To this end, various computational methods for gene expression–based subtyping of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) have been proposed, but their overlap and robustness remain unknown. Experimental Design: We assess three major subtype classifiers by meta-analysis of publicly available expression data, and assess statistical criteria of subtype robustness and classifier concordance. We develop a consensus classifier that represents the subtype classifications of tumors based on the consensus of multiple methods, and outputs a confidence score. Using our compendium of expression data, we examine the possibility that a subset of tumors is unclassifiable based on currently proposed subtypes. Results: HGSOC subtyping classifiers exhibit moderate pairwise concordance across our data compendium (58.9%–70.9%; P < 10−5) and are associated with overall survival in a meta-analysis across datasets (P < 10−5). Current subtypes do not meet statistical criteria for robustness to reclustering across multiple datasets (prediction strength < 0.6). A new subtype classifier is trained on concordantly classified samples to yield a consensus classification of patient tumors that correlates with patient age, survival, tumor purity, and lymphocyte infiltration. Conclusions: A new consensus ovarian subtype classifier represents the consensus of methods and demonstrates the importance of classification approaches for cancer that do not require all tumors to be assigned to a distinct subtype. Clin Cancer Res; 24(20); 5037–47. ©2018 AACR.
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 | 0.026 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".