Distinct spatial immune microlandscapes are independently associated with outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utility of spatial immunobiomarker quantitation in prognostication and therapeutic prediction is actively being investigated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Here, with high-plex quantitative digital spatial profiling, we map and quantitate intraepithelial and adjacent stromal tumor immune protein microenvironments in systemic treatment-naïve (female only) TNBC to assess the spatial context in immunobiomarker-based prediction of outcome. Immune protein profiles of CD45-rich and CD68-rich stromal microenvironments differ significantly. While they typically mirror adjacent, intraepithelial microenvironments, this is not uniformly true. In two TNBC cohorts, intraepithelial CD40 or HLA-DR enrichment associates with better outcomes, independently of stromal immune protein profiles or stromal TILs and other established prognostic variables. In contrast, intraepithelial or stromal microenvironment enrichment with IDO1 associates with improved survival irrespective of its spatial location. Antigen-presenting and T-cell activation states are inferred from eigenprotein scores. Such scores within the intraepithelial compartment interact with PD-L1 and IDO1 in ways that suggest prognostic and/or therapeutic potential. This characterization of the intrinsic spatial immunobiology of treatment-naïve TNBC highlights the importance of spatial microenvironments for biomarker quantitation to resolve intrinsic prognostic and predictive immune features and ultimately inform therapeutic strategies for clinically actionable immune biomarkers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".