MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genomic Taxonomy of Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoid Neoplasms

2025· review· en· W4415256607 on OpenAlexaff
Laura K. Hilton, Brett Collinge, David W. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Pathology Mechanisms of Disease · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BCSimon Fraser UniversityBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)GenomicsMolecular taxonomyBiological classificationSystems biologyKey (lock)Genome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggressive B-cell lymphomas are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms, organized in the current classifications into more than 20 categories on the basis of morphology, immunophenotype, clinical presentation, and limited molecular features. Over the past 25 years, there has been an exponential accumulation of detailed genomic characterizations of these lymphomas. Many defined categories have been confirmed as relatively homogeneous, fulfilling the classification ideal of sharing core biological hallmarks. However, the largest group, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified, which makes up 70-74% of the patients, has been revealed to be remarkably heterogeneous at a genomic and biological level. In this review, we summarize the current state of knowledge and then propose an evolution of the classification of aggressive B-cell lymphomas to a genomics-informed taxonomy built around normal B-cell development and the different modes by which lymphomas achieve key hallmarks of cancer-hallmarks that can inform on patient management.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueAnnual Review of Pathology Mechanisms of DiseaseSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207