MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394265151 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14937815

Construction of a novel risk model based on the random forest algorithm to distinguish pancreatic cancers with different prognoses and immune microenvironment features

2021· dataset· en· W4394265151 on OpenAlexaff
Yalan Lei, Rong Tang, Jin Xu, Bo Zhang, Jiang Liu, Liang Chen, Qingcai Meng, Jie Hua, Xianjun Yu, Wei Wang, Si Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestImmune systemRisk modelPancreatic cancerComputer scienceTumor microenvironmentComputational biologyAlgorithmBiologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineInternal medicineMathematicsStatisticsCancerImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune-related long noncoding RNAs (irlncRNAs) are actively involved in regulating the immune status. This study aimed to establish a risk model of irlncRNAs and further investigate the roles of irlncRNAs in predicting prognosis and the immune landscape in pancreatic cancer. The transcriptome profiles and clinical information of 176 pancreatic cancer patients were retrieved from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Immune-related genes (irgenes) downloaded from ImmPort were used to screen 1903 immune-related lncRNAs (irlncRNAs) using Pearson’s correlation analysis (R > 0.5; p < 0.001). Random survival forest (RSF) and survival tree analysis showed that 9 irlncRNAs were highly correlated with overall survival (OS) according to the variable importance (VIMP) and minimal depth. Next, Cox regression analysis was used to establish a risk model with 3 irlncRNAs (LINC00462, LINC01887, RP11-706C16.8) that was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis, the areas under the curve (AUCs) of the receiver operating characteristics and the C-index. Additionally, we performed Cox regression analysis to establish the clinical prognostic model, which showed that the risk score was an independent prognostic factor (p < 0.001). A nomogram and calibration plots were drawn to visualize the clinical features. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Pearson’s correlation analysis further explored the irlncRNA signatures and immune cell infiltration, as well as the immunotherapy response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207