MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415242506 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-20107-5

Modelling of immune infiltration in prostate cancer treated with HDR-brachytherapy using Raman spectroscopy and machine learning

2025· article· en· W4415242506 on OpenAlexafffund
Kirsty Milligan, Mitchell Wiebe, Alejandra M. Fuentes, Joan Brewer, Christina K. Haston, Julian J. Lum, Samantha Punch, Alejandra Raudales, Alexandre G. Brolo, Juanita Crook, Jeffrey L. Andrews, Andrew Jirasek

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaOkanagan University CollegeKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProstate cancerSupport vector machineElastic net regularizationRaman spectroscopyProstateStromal cellTumor-infiltrating lymphocytesImmune systemMean squared error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is characterized by an immunosuppressive tumour environment. This work combines Raman spectroscopy with group-and-bases-restricted non-negative matrix factorization (GBR-NMF) and machine learning to assemble models of immune cell densities within the needle-core biopsies of patients undergoing high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). Raman spectral acquisition, as well as immunohistochemistry staining of CD68[Formula: see text], CD3[Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] cells, was completed for biopsies collected before and 2 weeks following the first fraction of HDR-BT. Regression techniques, constructed using GBR-NMF scores, that produced the most accurate predictions of immune cell density by metrics of root mean-squared error (RMSE) and R[Formula: see text] were the gradient-boosted trees model of [Formula: see text] density (RMSE: 163 counts[Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]: 0.65) and the elastic net model of [Formula: see text]/ [Formula: see text] (RMSE: 0.25, [Formula: see text]: 0.82). The accuracy of these models, herein defined as the fraction of patient predictions within [Formula: see text] standard deviation of their measured values was 11/16 and 12/16, for CD68[Formula: see text] CD3[Formula: see text] and CD68[Formula: see text]/ CD8[Formula: see text] models, respectively. To further delineate which metabolites were most important in the CD68[Formula: see text]/ CD8[Formula: see text] model, this ratio was further predicted in stromal and epithelial tissues within the biopsies, and resulting models utilized the GBR-NMF scores of glutathione, collagen, palmitic acid, and the pre- or post-HDR-BT label to produce an optimal performance level according to RMSE and R[Formula: see text]. In summary, this study illustrates a novel methodology in which supervised machine learning techniques are used to model immune cells, which are prognostic indicators of disease progression.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207