Different Master Regulators Define Proximal and Distal Gastric Cancer: Insights into Prognosis and Opportunities for Targeted Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gastric cancer (GC) represents a significant global health burden with considerable heterogeneity in clinical and molecular behavior. The anatomical site of tumor origin—proximal versus distal—has emerged as a determinant of prognosis and response to therapy. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the transcriptional and regulatory differences between proximal gastric cancer (PGC) and distal gastric cancer (DGC) through master regulator (MR) analysis. Methods: We analyzed RNA-seq data from TCGA-STAD and microarray data from GEO (GSE62254, GSE15459). Differential gene expression and MR analyses were performed using DESeq2, limma, corto, and RegEnrich pipelines. A harmonized matrix of 4785 genes was used for MR inference following normalization and batch correction. Functional enrichment and survival analyses were conducted to explore prognostic associations. Results: Among 364 TCGA and 492 GEO patients, PGC was associated with more aggressive clinicopathological features and poorer outcomes. We identified 998 DEGs distinguishing PGC and DGC. PGC showed increased FOXM1 (a key regulator of cell proliferation), STAT3, and NF-κB1 activity, while DGC displayed enriched GATA6, CDX2 (a marker of intestinal differentiation), and HNF4A signaling. Functional enrichment highlighted proliferative and inflammatory programs in PGC, and differentiation and metabolic pathways in DGC. MR activity stratified survival outcomes, reinforcing prognostic relevance. Conclusions: PGC and DGC are governed by distinct transcriptional regulators and signaling networks. Our findings provide a biological rationale for location-based stratification and inform targeted therapy development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".