MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406595910 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-82206-z

Quantifying intratumoral biomarker heterogeneity in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma to optimize clinical translation

2025· article· en· W4406595910 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aline Talhouk, Derek S. Chiu, Liliane Meunier, Kurosh Rahimi, Cécile Le Page, Monique Bernard, Diane Provencher, David G. Huntsman, Martin Köbel

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersTerry Fox Research InstituteOvarian Cancer Canada
KeywordsSerous fluidBiomarkerOvarian carcinomaTranslation (biology)OncologyBiomarker discoveryPathologyMedicineOvarian cancerComputer scienceInternal medicineBiologyCancerProteomicsGeneMessenger RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) is spatial, phenotypic, or molecular differences within the same tumor that have important implications for accurate tumor classification and assessment of predictive biomarkers. The Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource (COEUR) has created a cohort of 437 FFPE tissue specimens from 108 tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) patients to quantify ITH across the anatomical sites and between primary and recurrence. We quantified the ITH of six clinically used immunohistochemical diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers (WT1, p53, p16, PR, CD8, and Ki67). Markers were stained on tissue microarrays and scored using a continuous or categorical interpretation of staining patterns. Two-way random effect and nested intraclass correlation were used to assess continuous markers, and Gwet's AC1 was used for categorical markers. All biomarkers showed at least substantial agreement over several spatial comparisons, with WT1, p53 and p16 showing almost perfect agreement for most spatial comparisons. Similarly, categorical WT1, p53 and p16 showed almost perfect agreement for temporal comparisons, while the agreement for primary versus recurrence for PR, CD8 and Ki67 was only fair. We provide power calculations to achieve reliability of > 0.60 and recommend testing emerging protein biomarkers to see whether they reach a clinically acceptable benchmark level of ITH.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→