MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409689988 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2025-51

Abstract 51: 10 second classification of spontaneous lymphoma in patient-derived tumor xenograft models

2025· article· en· W4409689988 on OpenAlexaff
Nhu‐An Pham, Lan Anna Ye, Arash Zarrine‐Afsar

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphomaOncologyInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDX) propagated in immunodeficient murine hosts have become effective preclinical models used in drug development and biological studies. PDX models have been established across tumor types with varying degrees of success. A main factor of engraftment failure is formation of spontaneous lymphocytic growths that may occur in murine hosts at the implant site of the patient tumor fragments or serial PDX fragments. Continuous monitoring of fidelity of PDXs to their parent patient tumors is by histological slide review of collected tumors. Processing for histological reviews could range from several hours to days, thus lacking in real-time decision-making support for utility of specimens. Method: Ambient Picosecond InfraRed Laser (PIRL) ablation soft ionization Mass Spectrometry (MS) was evaluated as a potential tool for rapid classification of spontaneous lymphocytic growth compared to PDX tumor growths. This method uses a 10-second sampling and analysis duration of 3 mm3 tumor fragments. Results: PIRL MS analyses across 5 common tumor types of pancreas, lung, colon, ovarian and head and neck with a total of 90 PDX specimens and 20 samples of H&E verified lymphocytic growths was used to train a Principal Component Analysis Linear Discriminate Analysis (PCA-LDA) model to discriminate lymphocytic growths from tumors. Cross-validation using a 20% leave-out test resulted in >94% accuracy for correctly classifying lymphocytic or tumor growths. To ensure the validity of this observation, a permutated version of this model with false annotation resulted in prediction accuracy of ∼50% in a 20% leave-out cross-validation. A test set of 90 specimens comprised of 15 lymphomas and 75 tumours was blindly sampled and subjected to the aforementioned model for prediction of specimen type. This blind assessment resulted in 99% sensitivity and 99% specificity values for either of the lymphoma or tumor classes. Conclusion: This proof-of-principle evaluation suggests that 10-second PIRL MS analysis is able to differentiate between lymphocytic and true tumor growths, further highlighting distinct mass to charge (m/z) values specific to each tissue type. PIRL-MS can therefore enable real-time decision-making with respect to the utility of PDX tissue collection for immediate downstream laboratory use, and to further minimize the cost associated with unintentional use of non-tumor outgrowths. The next steps involve determining the molecular identities of lymphoma classifying m/z values and to assess the PCA-LDA model’s sensitivity to engrafts that contain both lymphocytic and cancer growths. Citation Format: Nhu-An Pham, Lan Anna Ye, Julia Froment, Arash Zarrine-Afsar. 10 second classification of spontaneous lymphoma in patient-derived tumor xenograft models [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 51.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207