Gene signatures for cancer research: A 25-year retrospective and future avenues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, extensive studies, particularly in cancer analysis through large datasets like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), have aimed at improving patient therapies and precision medicine. However, limited overlap and inconsistencies among gene signatures across different cohorts pose challenges. The dynamic nature of the transcriptome, encompassing diverse RNA species and functional complexities at gene and isoform levels, introduces intricacies, and current gene signatures face reproducibility issues due to the unique transcriptomic landscape of each patient. In this context, discrepancies arising from diverse sequencing technologies, data analysis algorithms, and software tools further hinder consistency. While careful experimental design, analytical strategies, and standardized protocols could enhance reproducibility, future prospects lie in multiomics data integration, machine learning techniques, open science practices, and collaborative efforts. Standardized metrics, quality control measures, and advancements in single-cell RNA-seq will contribute to unbiased gene signature identification. In this perspective article, we outline some thoughts and insights addressing challenges, standardized practices, and advanced methodologies enhancing the reliability of gene signatures in disease transcriptomic research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".