Machine learning and experimental screening of chromatin regulator signatures and potential drugs in hepatitis B related hepatocellular carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many evidences have confirmed that chromatin regulator factors (CRs) are involved in the progression of cancer, but its potential mechanism of affecting hepatitis B related hepatocellular carcinoma still needs to be studied. Our study detected the CRs that affect hepatitis B related hepatocellular carcinoma (HBV-HCC) through machine learning analysis, conducted the analysis of immune cells, constructed the relevant risk model and immune function infiltration, and predicted the potential therapeutic drugs. We found that these CRs were significantly related to the immune cells of Macrophages, B cells, CD8+T cells, etc., and PBK, AURKA, TOP2A and AURKB were the potential risk CRs of HBV-HCC. The expression levels of these four CRs increased in HepG2.2.15 cells and the liver of HBV-HCC patients, consistent with the predicted risk model. Subsequently, ten potential drugs closely related to the risk CRs were finally obtained, experimental research on resveratrol has shown that it can inhibit the proliferation of HepG2.2.15 cells and potentially inhibit the occurrence and development of HBV-HCC. Our study provides novel insights into the function of CRs in HBV-HCC and certain ideas for more accurate targeted therapy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".