Genomic Profiling and Molecular Characterization of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) treatment has undergone three major paradigm shifts in recent years, first with the introduction of molecular targeted therapies, then with immune checkpoint inhibitors, and, more recently, with immune-based combinations. However, to date, molecular predictors of response to targeted agents have not been identified for ccRCC. The WHO 2022 classification of renal neoplasms introduced the molecularly defined RCC class, which is a first step in the direction of a better molecular profiling of RCC. We reviewed the literature data on known genomic alterations of clinical interest in ccRCC, discussing their prognostic and predictive role. In particular, we explored the role of VHL, mTOR, chromatin modulators, DNA repair genes, cyclin-dependent kinases, and tumor mutation burden. RCC is a tumor whose pivotal genomic alterations have pleiotropic effects, and the interplay of these effects determines the tumor phenotype and its clinical behavior. Therefore, it is difficult to find a single genomic predictive factor, but it is more likely to identify a signature of gene alterations that could impact prognosis and response to specific treatment. To accomplish this task, the interpolation of large amounts of clinical and genomic data is needed. Nevertheless, genomic profiling has the potential to change real-world clinical practice settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".