Genetic subdivisions of follicular lymphoma defined by distinct coding and noncoding mutation patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Follicular lymphoma (FL) accounts for ∼20% of all new lymphoma cases. Increases in cytological grade are a feature of the clinical progression of this malignancy, and eventual histologic transformation (HT) to the aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) occurs in up to 15% of patients. Clinical or genetic features to predict the risk and timing of HT have not been described comprehensively. In this study, we analyzed whole-genome sequencing data from 423 patients to compare the protein coding and noncoding mutation landscapes of untransformed FL, transformed FL, and de novo DLBCL. This revealed 2 genetically distinct subgroups of FL, which we have named DLBCL-like (dFL) and constrained FL (cFL). Each subgroup has distinguishing mutational patterns, aberrant somatic hypermutation rates, and biological and clinical characteristics. We implemented a machine learning-derived classification approach to stratify patients with FL into cFL and dFL subgroups based on their genomic features. Using separate validation cohorts, we demonstrate that cFL status, whether assigned with this full classifier or a single-gene approximation, is associated with a reduced rate of HT. This implies distinct biological features of cFL that constrain its evolution, and we highlight the potential for this classification to predict HT from genetic features present at diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".