Tumor evolution metrics predict recurrence beyond 10 years in locally advanced prostate cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer evolution lays the groundwork for predictive oncology. Testing evolutionary metrics requires quantitative measurements in controlled clinical trials. We mapped genomic intratumor heterogeneity in locally advanced prostate cancer using 642 samples from 114 individuals enrolled in clinical trials with a 12-year median follow-up. We concomitantly assessed morphological heterogeneity using deep learning in 1,923 histological sections from 250 individuals. Genetic and morphological (Gleason) diversity were independent predictors of recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) = 3.12 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.34-7.3; HR = 2.24 and 95% CI = 1.28-3.92). Combined, they identified a group with half the median time to recurrence. Spatial segregation of clones was also an independent marker of recurrence (HR = 2.3 and 95% CI = 1.11-4.8). We identified copy number changes associated with Gleason grade and found that chromosome 6p loss correlated with reduced immune infiltration. Matched profiling of relapse, decades after diagnosis, confirmed that genomic instability is a driving force in prostate cancer progression. This study shows that combining genomics with artificial intelligence-aided histopathology leads to the identification of clinical biomarkers of evolution.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it