Lessons learned from a candidate gene study investigating aromatase inhibitor treatment outcome in breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of germline genetics in adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment efficacy in ER-positive breast cancer is poorly understood. We employed a two-stage candidate gene approach to examine associations between survival endpoints and common germline variants in 753 endocrine resistance-related genes. For a discovery cohort, we screened the Breast Cancer Association Consortium database (n ≥ 90,000 cases) and retrieved 2789 AI-treated patients. Cox model-based analysis revealed 125 variants associated with overall, distant relapse-free, and relapse-free survival (p-value ≤ 1E-04). In validation analysis using five independent cohorts (n = 8857), none of the six selected candidates representing major linkage blocks at CELA2B/CASP9, NR1I2/GSK3B, LRP1B, and MIR143HG (CARMN) were validated. We discuss potential reasons for the failed validation and replication of published findings, including study/treatment heterogeneity and other limitations inherent to genomic treatment outcome studies. For the future, we envision prospective longitudinal studies with sufficiently long follow-up and endpoints that reflect the dynamic nature of endocrine resistance.
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 | 0.034 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".