MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival Related Genes on Chromosomes 6 and 17 in Medulloblastoma

2024· preprint· en· W4396901195 on OpenAlexaff
Jerry Vriend, Xiaoqing Liu

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIsochromosomeMedulloblastomaGeneticsTelomeraseHigh-mobility groupChromosome 17 (human)GeneHistoneTelomereOncogeneCancer researchChromosomeMolecular biologyCell cycleKaryotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival of Medulloblastoma (MB) depends on various factors, including the gene expression profiles of MB tumor tissues. In this study, we identified 967 MB survival related genes (SRBs) using the gene expression dataset of Cavalli et al. (2017) and the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Notably, the SRGs were over-represented on chromosomes 6 and 17, known for the abnormalities monosomy 6 and isochromosome 17 in MB. The most significant SRG was HMGA1 (high mobility group AT-hook 1), which is a known oncogene and a histone H1 competitor. High expression of HMGA1 was associated with worse survival, primarily in the Group 3γ subtype. The high expression of HMGA1 was unrelated to any known somatic copy number alteration. Most SRGs on chromosome 17p were associated with low expression in Group 4β, the MB subtype with 93% deletion of 17p and 98% copy gain of 17q. Pathway analysis showed that both chromosomes 6 and 17 included SRGs related to telomere maintenance and provide a rationale for testing telomerase inhibitors in Group 3 MBs. We conclude that HMGA1, along with other SRGs on chromosome 6 and 17 warrant further investigation as potential therapeutic targets in selected subgroups or subtypes of MB.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207