MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386170080 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.107722

A cancer-associated fibroblast subtypes-based signature enables the evaluation of immunotherapy response and prognosis in bladder cancer

2023· article· en· W4386170080 on OpenAlexaff
Yiming Qin, Xiongbing Zu, Yin Li, Ying Han, Jun Tan, Changjing Cai, Edward Shen, Ping Liu, Ganlu Deng, Ziyang Feng, Wantao Wu, Yinghui Peng, Yongting Liu, Jiayao Ma, Shan Zeng, Yihong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyBladder cancerNomogramMedicineCancer researchOncologyTumor microenvironmentCancer-Associated FibroblastsCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bladder cancer (BLCA) is one of the most prevalent and heterogeneous urinary malignant tumors. Previous researches have reported a significant association between cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and poor prognosis of tumor patients. However, uncertainty surrounds the role of CAFs in the BLCA tumor microenvironment, necessitating further investigation into the CAFs-related gene signatures in BLCA. In this study, we identified three CAF subtypes in BLCA according to single-cell RNA-seq data and constructed CAFs-related risk score (CRRS) by screening 102,714 signatures. The survival analysis, ROC curves, and nomogram suggested that CRRS was a valuable predictor in 2,042 patients from 9 available public datasets and Xiangya real-world cohort. We further revealed the significant correlation between CRRS and clinicopathological characteristics, genome alterations, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). A high CRRS indicated a non-inflamed phenotype and a lower remission rate of immunotherapy in BLCA. In conclusion, the CRRS had the potential to predict the prognosis and immunotherapy response of BLCA patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207