Genomic Staging of Multifocal Lung Squamous Cell Carcinomas Is Independent of the Comprehensive Morphologic Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Morphologic and molecular data for staging of multifocal lung squamous cell carcinomas (LSCCs) are limited. In this study, whole exome sequencing (WES) was used as the gold standard to determine whether multifocal LSCC represented separate primary lung cancers (SPLCs) or intrapulmonary metastases (IPMs). Genomic profiles were compared with the comprehensive morphologic assessment. METHODS: WES was performed on 20 tumor pairs of multifocal LSCC and matched normal lymph nodes using the Illumina NovaSeq6000 S4-Xp (Illumina, San Diego, CA). WES clonal and subclonal analysis data were compared with histologic assessment by 16 thoracic pathologists. In addition, the immune gene profiling of the study cases was characterized by the HTG EdgeSeq Precision Immuno-Oncology Panel. RESULTS: By WES data, 11 cases were classified as SPLC and seven cases as IPM. Two cases were technically suboptimal. Analysis revealed marked genomic and immunogenic heterogeneity, but immune gene expression profiles highly correlated with mutation profiles. Tumors classified as IPM have a large number of shared mutations (ranging from 33.5% to 80.7%). The agreement between individual morphologic assessments for each case and WES was 58.3%. One case was unanimously interpreted morphologically as IPM and was in agreement with WES. In a further 17 cases, the number of pathologists whose morphologic interpretation was in agreement with WES ranged from two (one case) to 15 pathologists (one case) per case. Pathologists showed a fair interobserver agreement in the morphologic staging of multiple LSCCs, with an overall kappa of 0.232. CONCLUSIONS: Staging of multifocal LSCC based on morphologic assessment is unreliable. Comprehensive genomic analyses should be adopted for the staging of multifocal LSCC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".