Panorama of Chromosomal Instability in Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lung cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease primarily driven by tobacco smoking. About 20% of lung cancers occur among patients who have never smoked (LCINS) with differences in patient ancestry, sex, tumor histology, and clinical features. Our understanding of chromosomal instability in lung cancer, especially LCINS, is still limited. Here, we perform a comprehensive study of 182,429 somatic structural variations (SVs) detected in 1,209 whole-genome sequenced lung cancers, of which 864 LCINS. SVs are more abundant in tumors from patients who have smoked (LCSS); however, they are more complex and play more important roles in tumorigenesis in LCINS. EGFR mutations and KRAS mutations profoundly and independently shape the SV landscape. EGFR -mutant tumors have higher SV burden and more cancer-driving SVs. In contrast, KRAS mutations are associated with lower SV burden and less driver SVs. We decompose 16 SV signatures for both complex and simple SVs that likely represent divergent molecular mechanisms. The SV breakpoints have distinct distributions across the genome depending on the signatures due to mutagenic mechanisms and positive selection. Many established cancer-driving genes are recurrently rearranged by multiple SV signatures suggesting functional convergence of these genome instability mechanisms.
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) | 0.003 | 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".