The tandem duplicator phenotype may be a novel targetable subgroup in pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tandem duplicator phenotype (TDP) consists of distinct genomic rearrangements where tandem duplications are randomly distributed. In this study, we characterized the prevalence and outcomes of TDP in a large series of prospectively sequenced tumors from patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC). Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was performed in 530 PDAC cases from the PanCuRx Initiative, COMPASS and PanGen/POG trials in Canada. Of 530 cases, 52 were identified as TDP (9.8%; 13 resected, 39 advanced). Etiological subgroups of TDP included BRCA1 (n = 9), CCNE1 (n = 4), and unknown (n = 39). Presence of TDP was not prognostic in resected specimens (p = 0.77) compared with non-HRD and non-TDP cases, described as typicals. In advanced cases, when stratified for only classical subtype cases, platinum therapy was correlated with longer response in non-BRCA1 TDP vs. typicals (p = 0.0036). There was no difference in overall survival between TDP and typicals (p = 0.5).TDP represents a potential novel targetable subgroup for chemotherapy selection in PDAC.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".