MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362541272 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-2049

Abstract 2049: Clinically and biologically distinct molecular subtypes of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC)

2023· article· en· W4362541272 on OpenAlexaff
Ashar Siddiqui, Cynthia Stretch, Farshad Farshidfar, Oliver F. Bathe

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFerroptosis and cancer prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncologyInternal medicineLung cancerMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Hazard ratioProportional hazards modelUnivariate analysisDiseaseCancerMultivariate analysisBiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with LUSC accounting for a third of cases. Stage I and II LUSC is typically treated with resection, and decisions related to adjuvant chemotherapy are related to recurrence risk, which is a function of stage. However, disease stage does not fully capture tumor biology, which may be a more important determinant of recurrence risk. Our objective was to identify biologically significant molecular subgroups of LUSC that more accurately reflect recurrence risk. Methods: Transcriptomic data for resected stage I/II LUSC were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). A training set consisting of patients who underwent resection without adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was used for discovery (N=161). A proprietary machine learning algorithm (HighLifeR™) was used to identify the genes most associated with disease-free survival (DFS). Molecular subgroups were identified by unsupervised clustering of prognostic genes. Functional differences between molecular subgroups were identified by gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA). Results: HighLifeR™ identified 60 highly prognostic genes. Two molecular subgroups were identified with significantly different median DFS: a high-risk group with 59.300 months and hazard ratio of 11.551, and a low-risk group that did not reach 50% DFS (log-rank p = 1.96 x 10-5). These subgroups did not differ in age, sex, race, smoking status, or overall stage (p > 0.05). Importantly, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the molecular subgroups outperformed clinical stage in predicting DFS. The molecular subgroups were biologically distinct. On GSEA, the high-risk group was significantly enriched in genes involved in mitotic spindle assembly (NES=1.94, p<0.001); TGFα signaling and PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling were modestly enriched. IPA pathway analysis demonstrated significant enrichment of numerous pathways linked to neuronal growth and signaling (eg: CREB signaling, S100 signaling, pathways in myelination and synaptogenesis), as well as TGFα signaling and AMPK signaling (all p<0.001). Conclusions: Our prognostic transcriptomic signature identified two biologically distinct molecular subgroups of LUSC. Molecular subgroup classification was more predictive of DFS in stage I and II LUSC than any other clinical or pathological variable. If further validation confirms this, then this biomarker may form the basis of a diagnostic test that helps inform which patients could be considered for adjuvant chemotherapy. Citation Format: Ashar Siddiqui, Cynthia Stretch, Farshad Farshidfar, Oliver F. Bathe. Clinically and biologically distinct molecular subtypes of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 2049.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 ResearchSame topicFerroptosis and cancer prognosisFrench-language works237,207