Spatially mapping the tumour immune microenvironments of non-small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. An enhanced understanding of the immune microenvironments within these tumours may foster more precise and efficient treatment, particularly for immune-targeted therapies. The spatial architectural differences between lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) are relatively unexplored. Here, we applied imaging mass cytometry to a balanced cohort of LUAD and LUSC patients, matched for clinical factors such as age, sex, and smoking history, to analyze 204 histopathology images of tumours from 102 individuals with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). By analyzing interactions and broader cellular networks, we interrogate the tumour microenvironment to understand how immune cells are spatially organized in clinically matched adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma subsets. This spatial analysis revealed distinct patterns of immune cell aggregation, particularly among macrophage populations, that correlated with patient prognosis differentially in adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, suggesting potential new strategies for therapeutic intervention. Our findings underscore the importance of analyzing NSCLC histological subtypes separately when investigating the spatial immune landscape, as microenvironmental characteristics and cellular interactions differed by subtype. Recognizing these distinctions is essential for designing precision therapies tailored to each subtype’s unique immune architecture, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes. The spatial architecture of the lung cancer microenvironment could influence the survival outlook and therapeutic options of patients. Here the authors find distinct patterns and composition of immune cells when comparing lung adenocarcinomas and lung squamous cell carcinomas, paving way for precision immune therapy according to histological subtype.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".