Five latent factors underlie response to immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only a subset of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) respond to the treatment, and distinguishing responders from non-responders is a major challenge. Many proposed biomarkers of CPI response and survival probably represent alternative measurements of the same aspects of the tumor, its microenvironment or the host. Thus, we currently ignore how many truly independent biomarkers there are. With an unbiased analysis of genomics, transcriptomics and clinical data of a cohort of patients with metastatic tumors (n = 479), we discovered five orthogonal latent factors: tumor mutation burden, T cell effective infiltration, transforming growth factor-beta activity in the microenvironment, prior treatment and tumor proliferative potential. Their association with CPI response and survival was observed across all tumor types and validated across six independent cohorts (n = 1,491). These five latent factors constitute a frame of reference to organize current and future knowledge on biomarkers of CPI response and survival. Analysis of human tumor datasets shows that all features that appear significantly associated with immunotherapy response and survival may be collapsed into five latent factors: tumor mutation burden, T cell effective infiltration, TGF-β activity in the microenvironment, prior treatment and tumor proliferative potential.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".