AHRR and SFRP2 in primary versus recurrent high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma and their prognostic implication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyse transcriptomic differences between primary and recurrent high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) to identify prognostic biomarkers. METHODS: We analysed 19 paired primary and recurrent HGSOC samples using targeted RNA sequencing. We selected the best candidates using in silico survival and pathway analysis and validated the biomarkers using immunohistochemistry on a cohort of 44 paired samples, an additional cohort of 504 primary HGSOCs and explored their function. RESULTS: We identified 233 differential expressed genes. Twenty-three showed a significant prognostic value for PFS and OS in silico. Seven markers (AHRR, COL5A2, FABP4, HMGCS2, ITGA5, SFRP2 and WNT9B) were chosen for validation at the protein level. AHRR expression was higher in primary tumours (p < 0.0001) and correlated with better patient survival (p < 0.05). Stromal SFRP2 expression was higher in recurrent samples (p = 0.009) and protein expression in primary tumours was associated with worse patient survival (p = 0.022). In multivariate analysis, tumour AHRR and SFRP2 remained independent prognostic markers. In vitro studies supported the anti-tumorigenic role of AHRR and the oncogenic function of SFRP2. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underline the relevance of AHRR and SFRP2 proteins in aryl-hydrocarbon receptor and Wnt-signalling, respectively, and might lead to establishing them as biomarkers in HGSOC.
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".