{"data":{"sci_version": "1.2", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:28687838", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 2, "content_hash": "sha256:ffd6c7c3021d85418e2fc9aa5f7596017e4bfe6d3ec2479641b8743a77c9b38d", "created_at": "2026-11-01T15:40:27Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T18:48:50Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01"}, "paper": {"state": "complete", "title": "Development and Validation of an Individualized Immune Prognostic Signature in Early-Stage Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.", "doi": "10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1609", "pmid": "28687838", "authors": ["Bailiang Li", "Yi Cui", "Maximilian Diehn", "Ruijiang Li"], "journal": "JAMA oncology", "year": 2017, "abstract": "IMPORTANCE: The prevalence of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is expected to increase with recent implementation of annual screening programs. Reliable prognostic biomarkers are needed to identify patients at a high risk for recurrence to guide adjuvant therapy.\nOBJECTIVE: To develop a robust, individualized immune signature that can estimate prognosis in patients with early-stage nonsquamous NSCLC.\nDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective study analyzed the gene expression profiles of frozen tumor tissue samples from 19 public NSCLC cohorts, including 18 microarray data sets and 1 RNA-Seq data set for The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) lung adenocarcinoma cohort. Only patients with nonsquamous NSCLC with clinical annotation were included. Samples were from 2414 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, divided into a meta-training cohort (729 patients), meta-testing cohort (716 patients), and 3 independent validation cohorts (439, 323, and 207 patients). All patients underwent surgery with a negative surgical margin, received no adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, and had publicly available gene expression data and survival information. Data were collected from July 22 through September 8, 2016.\nMAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival.\nRESULTS: Of 2414 patients (1205 men [50%], 1111 women [46%], and 98 of unknown sex [4%]; median age [range], 64 [15-90] years), a prognostic immune signature of 25 gene pairs consisting of 40 unique genes was constructed using the meta-training data set. In the meta-testing and validation cohorts, the immune signature significantly stratified patients into high- vs low-risk groups in terms of overall survival across and within subpopulations with stage I, IA, IB, or II disease and remained as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio range, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.26-2.33; P < .001] to 2.36 [95% CI, 1.47-3.79; P < .001]) after adjusting for clinical and pathologic factors. Several biological processes, including chemotaxis, were enriched among genes in the immune signature. The percentage of neutrophil infiltration (5.6% vs 1.8%) and necrosis (4.6% vs 1.5%) was significantly higher in the high-risk immune group compared with the low-risk groups in TCGA data set (P < .003). The immune signature achieved a higher accuracy (mean concordance index [C-index], 0.64) than 2 commercialized multigene signatures (mean C-index, 0.53 and 0.61) for estimation of survival in comparable validation cohorts. When integrated with clinical characteristics such as age and stage, the composite clinical and immune signature showed improved prognostic accuracy in all validation data sets relative to molecular signatures alone (mean C-index, 0.70 vs 0.63) and another commercialized clinical-molecular signature (mean C-index, 0.68 vs 0.65).\nCONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The proposed clinical-immune signature is a promising biomarker for estimating overall survival in nonsquamous NSCLC, including early-stage disease. Prospective studies are needed to test the clinical utility of the biomarker in individualized management of nonsquamous NSCLC.", "claims": [{"id": "claim-target-result", "statement": "In a retrospective multiple-cohort analysis of gene-expression profiles from 19 public NSCLC cohorts, a 25-gene-pair immune signature was constructed in a meta-training cohort and tested in meta-testing and three independent validation cohorts, significantly stratifying patients by overall survival.", "kind": "quantitative", "target": {"value": 95.0, "unit": "per cent", "tolerance": null, "source": "In the meta-testing and validation cohorts, the immune signature significantly stratified patients into high- vs low-risk groups in terms of overall survival across and within subpopulations with stage I, IA, IB, or II disease and remained as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio range, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.26-2.33; P < .001] to 2.36 [95% CI, 1.47-3.79; P < .001]) after adjusting for clinical and pathologic factors."}, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:28687838", "locator": "sections[0] \"Abstract\" paragraph 7", "quote": "This retrospective study analyzed the gene expression profiles of frozen tumor tissue samples from 19 public NSCLC cohorts, including 18 microarray data sets and 1 RNA-Seq data set for The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) lung adenocarcinoma cohort."}, {"asset": "source:pmid:28687838", "locator": "sections[0] \"Abstract\" paragraph 7", "quote": "Samples were from 2414 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, divided into a meta-training cohort (729 patients), meta-testing cohort (716 patients), and 3 independent validation cohorts (439, 323, and 207 patients)."}, {"asset": "source:pmid:28687838", "locator": "sections[0] \"Abstract\" paragraph 9", "quote": "In the meta-testing and validation cohorts, the immune signature significantly stratified patients into high- vs low-risk groups in terms of overall survival across and within subpopulations with stage I, IA, IB, or II disease and remained as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio range, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.26-2.33; P < .001] to 2.36 [95% CI, 1.47-3.79; P < .001]) after adjusting for clinical and pathologic factors."}], "state": "complete"}], "gaps": []}, "experiment": {"state": "partial", "objective": "In a retrospective multiple-cohort analysis of gene-expression profiles from 19 public NSCLC cohorts, a 25-gene-pair immune signature was constructed in a meta-training cohort and tested in meta-testing and three independent validation cohorts, significantly stratifying patients by overall survival.", "steps": [{"id": "read_published_estimate", "order": 1, "name": "Read the published estimate from the source", "kind": "other", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "The claim, method and evidence span published with the source article.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": ["source:pmid:28687838"], "outputs": ["the published estimate and its evidence"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "obtain_source_data", "order": 2, "name": "Obtain the source data from the named repository", "kind": "data-preparation", "state": "blocked", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "description": "The GEO series accession resolves and its sample accessions are listed. This lane did not download the dataset or read its licence.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the source data with its repository provenance"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "run_analysis", "order": 3, "name": "Run the published analysis", "kind": "analysis", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "Apply the paper's statistical method to the resolved series and compare the result with the published target.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the replicated result and its comparison"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": ["step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent"]}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:28687838", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1609", "sha256": "sha256:7538e7e1f3dc65b17900bc34e6cd269d33ae5cce98f692e12bd0b3292d31cc0d", "bytes": 3762, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1609", "version": null, "note": "Full article fetched from PMC; the checksum covers the rendered section body, not the original XML bytes.", "structure": {"pmcid": "PMC5710196", "source": "ncbi_pmc_fulltext", "coverage": "whole_body", "text_hash_scope": "rendered_section_body"}}], "gaps": []}, "analysis": {"state": "absent", "methods": [], "targets": [{"id": "target-published-estimate", "claim_id": "claim-target-result", "operation": null, "expected_value": 95.0, "unit": "per cent", "tolerance": null, "state": "complete", "note": "The published estimate as the reader quoted it from the paper. No tolerance is published because the paper states none."}], "gaps": ["method", "operations"]}, "capability": {"state": "complete", "requirements": [{"capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "label": "Computational analysis platform", "assay_families": ["meta_analysis", "machine_learning", "survival_analysis", "statistical_regression", "pca", "molecular_docking", "network_analysis", "differential_expression", "gwas"], "availability_state": "owned", "tier_unlocked": "R1", "candidate": "Automated Assays Laravel application and simulated adapters"}], "gaps": []}, "readiness": {"state": "blocked", "tier": "R4", "blocking_axis": "data", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "axes": {"method": {"tier": "R4", "expressible": false, "required_operations": [], "missing_operations": [], "basis": "The reader quoted the method the paper names (not named), but the corpus's method extractor could not map it onto a DSL operation, so the method is published but not expressible."}, "capability": {"tier": "R1", "capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "availability_state": "owned", "basis": "The computational analysis is owned. The physical bench the paper used is not, so a physical validation cannot be run here."}, "data": {"tier": "R4", "reachable": false, "accessions": [], "resolved_accessions": [], "statements": [], "basis": "The paper names no accession to its source data, so the data has to come from the authors."}}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": [], "assets": ["source:pmid:28687838"], "steps": ["run_analysis"]}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [], "converters": [], "readers": [], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["data:geo:None"]}, "gaps": ["data:accession_absent"]}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"kind": "extraction_review", "reader": {"model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax", "provider_family": "minimax", "read_at": "2026-10-31T18:31:30Z", "independence": "single_reader"}, "evidence_check": {"method": null, "availability": null}, "calls": 2, "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 2586, "completion_tokens": 685, "cached_tokens": 264}}, "human_critique": null, "stages": [{"id": "extraction", "state": "complete", "reader": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax"}], "gaps": ["review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "review.human_critique"]}, "execution": {"state": "absent", "status": "not_run", "mode": null, "runs": [], "gaps": ["execution.not_run"]}, "provenance": {"entities": [{"id": "pmid:28687838", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:28687838"}, {"id": "source:pmid:28687838", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 28687838 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity-reading-sci-2026-11-01", "type": "classification", "used": [{"id": "pmid:28687838", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:28687838"}, {"id": "source:pmid:28687838", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 28687838 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}, {"id": "activity-read-28687838", "type": "extraction", "used": ["source:pmid:28687838"], "agent": "agent:minimax-reader"}, {"id": "activity-resolve-None", "type": "accession_resolution", "used": ["data:geo:None"], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}], "agents": [{"id": "agent:corpus-assay-engine", "type": "software", "label": "Corpus assay engine"}, {"id": "agent:minimax-reader", "type": "software", "label": "MiniMax literature reader"}], "source_run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01", "dsl_catalogue_fingerprint": "343fb30756ba6ec3", "capability_table_fingerprint": "2cb3e42f047d2ecf", "snapshot_id": "ba34b49490d9bfaf"}, "lineage": {"parent_id": "pmid:28687838", "parent_hash": "sha256:32873a1f4b15d17898061c98c557ce381e81bc0f698ec8fbb59043e3718ab3c0", "fork_of": null, "generation": 1}, "gaps": ["execution.not_run", "method", "operations", "review.human_critique", "review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent"], "assays": [{"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "microarray", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.93, "evidence": ["s from 19 public NSCLC cohorts, including 18 microarray data sets and 1 RNA-Seq data set for The Can"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:676", "id": "assay:1"}, {"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "rna_seq", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.93, "evidence": ["rts, including 18 microarray data sets and 1 RNA-Seq data set for The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:703", "id": "assay:2"}]},"meta":{"api_version":"v1","automation_ladder_snapshot":"ba34b49490d9bfaf","automation_ladder_caveats":["Method extraction is rule-based and has no hand-judged accuracy sample. Evidence bands order textual support; method agreement intervals are null (n=0), never probabilities. Work-type validation does not validate methods.","Operation coverage describes only explicitly named methods. It does not prove a complete protocol, compatible parameters, successful compilation or re-execution. Unrecognised or ambiguous methods require review.","Data reachability is a textual accession or public-data statement. No dataset was downloaded or checked for access, completeness or licence.","Capabilities are planning states seeded from the dated equipment register. No bench ownership, completed quote or partner booking is inferred. Procurement counts are dependencies, not guaranteed replications or financial returns.","Tier and blocker counts are deterministic assessments of this corpus, not measured agreement. R3 is reserved for procurement; unresolved methods and data require human work (R4). The most restrictive axis wins, with capability, method, data as tie-breaks. Resolving one blocker can leave another at the same tier."],"engine":"corpus_engine","engine_provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","run_id":"run-20261023T122449232913","source":"esearch","source_detail":"PubMed mirror biomed_pubmed (read-only)","run_status":"complete","imported_at":"2026-11-03T20:16:52+00:00","generated_at":"2026-11-04T00:47:29+00:00","total_papers":5529,"total_assays_tracked":29,"automatable_assay_families":6,"validated":true,"caveat_count":9,"blocking_caveats":5,"caveats":[{"code":"low_evidence_dominates","basis":["4,152 of 5,529 classifications (75.1%) matched no cue evidence and sit at the 0.05 floor.","34 of 230 data_only calls (14.8%) are in that group."],"claim":"Work type and confidence bands","gloss":"Most records were classified from their title and framing alone, with assay-cue coverage at zero.","detail":"Most classifications in this run rest on no matched evidence at all. At the evidence floor the work type comes from title framing and a fixed prior, not from anything in the paper, so the published work-type split should be read as a rough triage signal rather than a measured distribution. The impact is bounded but not removed: since 2026-10-23 the engine excludes floor-confidence records from the shortlist entirely and publishes them separately as held out, so the recommendation is unaffected even though the census is.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"runtime_is_modelled","basis":["Runtime is summed from published per-assay hour figures. Timing awaits the first executed replication.","4,407 of 5,529 records (79.7%) model to 0.00 hours because no assay was matched, which the ranking then reads as \"cheapest\".","0 of 10 shortlisted records carry a 0.00-hour estimate."],"claim":"Estimated replication runtime","gloss":"The hour figures are estimates built from assay mentions; timing awaits the first executed replication.","detail":"The hour figures are a cost model derived from the bench steps implied by each matched assay family. The first executed replication will supply measured timing. Records without an assay match currently receive a zero-hour model value.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"signal_score_without_citations","basis":["5,529 of 5,529 records (100.0%) have no citation count from the source metadata."],"claim":"Signal score","gloss":"The signal score uses publication-type weight because the mirror supplied zero citation counts.","detail":"The source supplied no citation counts for any record in this run, so the signal score is publication-type weight only. The citation term of the ranking is inert here, and the shortlist is ordered by publication type alone.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"abstract_absent","basis":["1,667 of 5,529 records (30.2%) carry no abstract at all."],"claim":"Evidence base for classification","gloss":"Some records contain a title and publication type only, defining the available classification evidence.","detail":"Where the mirror contains a title and publication types only, those fields define the classifier evidence. A methods section is required for fuller automated and human review.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"},{"code":"classifier_agreement_measured","basis":["Published two-way decision agreement 77.7% (310 of 399 decidable records) from a stratified hand-check of 438 real records.","Three-way diagnostic agreement 73.9% (288 of 390 decidable records).","data_only agreement 75.2% (100 of 133 decidable).","48 record(s) could not be decided from title and abstract and were excluded from the denominator.","56 analysis-only records were published under another work type, so the data_only share is not an upper bound."],"claim":"Published automatable decision","gloss":"This figure has been checked against a human reading the same papers, so we know how often it is right.","detail":"The published automatable / not-automatable distribution comes from a rule-based classifier that was hand-checked against a fixed ground-truth definition. The agreement rates below are measured, not estimated. The three-way work type remains a diagnostic and is reported separately.","status":"measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"llm_comparison_not_measured","basis":["rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f produced 5,529 of 5,529 classifications.","Measured on 438 labelled records; these are RULE-BASED figures, not model results."],"claim":"Rule-based versus LLM agreement","gloss":"Every number here is the rule engine’s own. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","detail":"The published two-way decision agreed with a human reading on 310 of 399 decidable records (77.7%). The diagnostic three-way label agreed on 288 of 390 decidable records (73.9%). Every percentage in this run belongs to the rule engine. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","status":"not_measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"confidence_is_a_band","basis":["low band: 135 of 210 hand-judged records were correct, 64.3% [57.6, 70.5] (95% CI).","medium band: 80 of 104 hand-judged records were correct, 76.9% [68.0, 84.0] (95% CI).","high band: 73 of 76 hand-judged records were correct, 96.0% [89.0, 98.7] (95% CI).","A fitted calibrated probability was built, measured and withdrawn: it overstated held-out accuracy and reorders nothing."],"claim":"Confidence band and evidence score","gloss":"The confidence band carries a measured accuracy interval; 0.85 represents relative rank strength.","detail":"Confidence on this run is a BAND plus its measured accuracy interval. The number stored alongside each record is a monotone evidence score that orders records; 0.85 represents relative rank strength. A fitted probability was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy. Threshold on the band.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"three_way_split_is_diagnostic","basis":["The corpus is published at the two-way decision: automatable or not-automatable. The three-way split (data_only / physical / mixed) is published as a diagnostic with its measured reliability attached, not as a claim, because the rule engine's `mixed` call cannot be defended.","The engine called 22 record(s) mixed; 10 matched the human judgement (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9-65.3).","The engine's `mixed` call is right on 10/22 hand-judged records (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9%-65.3%); a constant `physical` guess scores 36.4%.","The engine's `mixed` call does not reliably beat a constant `physical` guess on the hand-judged records it labels mixed.","The sign of that difference flips between two independent samples, so the three-way refinement is not demonstrably informative.","The mixed stratum contributes a disproportionate share of errors relative to its size.","At title-only depth the physical/mixed split collapses: a title says that work was done, not whether it was also analysed."],"claim":"The published decision is two-way","gloss":"The three-way split is shown for diagnosis only. The published split is two ways.","detail":"Count and filter the corpus on automatable versus not-automatable. The data_only / physical / mixed split remains an internal engine diagnostic because the mixed call has lower measured reliability.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"automatable_flag_unproven","basis":["6 of 29 assay families are marked automatable now: meta_analysis, machine_learning, survival_analysis, pca, molecular_docking, differential_expression.","The flag is a rule over assay family and work type; validation begins with the first executed replication.","It inherits the 75.2% data_only agreement rate, because the flag requires the record to be analysis-only."],"claim":"Automatable now","gloss":"This flag marks assay families the rules classify as data-only. The first executed replication will validate it.","detail":"This flag marks families the rules consider replicable from data alone. Its validity depends on the analysis-only classification and will be measured through an executed replication.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"}],"confidence_policy":"band_with_measured_interval","confidence_contract":{"policy":"band_with_measured_interval","summary":"Confidence is reported as a BAND with a measured accuracy interval. The raw evidence score supplies monotone ordering. A fitted point estimate was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy.","evidence_score":"A monotone evidence score in [0,1] built from cue mass, axis separation and text coverage. Use it to order records. Interpret 0.85 as relative rank strength.","confidence_band":"low | medium | high. Consumers threshold on this value.","band_accuracy":"Wilson 95% interval on the measured agreement of the hand-judged records in this band.","calibrated_confidence":"WITHDRAWN. Reintroduction requires held-out evidence demonstrating reliable estimates across every bin."},"band_accuracy":{"low":{"n":210,"low":0.576,"band":"low","high":0.7046,"agree":135,"accuracy":0.6429},"high":{"n":76,"low":0.8903,"band":"high","high":0.9865,"agree":73,"accuracy":0.9605},"medium":{"n":104,"low":0.6795,"band":"medium","high":0.8397,"agree":80,"accuracy":0.7692}},"provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","lexicon_id":"99e1195c7d6f","contract_published_at":"2026-10-23T12:25:29.022232+00:00","confidence_is_band":true,"confidence_is_probability":false,"decision_taxonomy":"two_way","decidable_fraction_two_way":0.8854,"decidable_fraction_two_way_low":0.8565,"decidable_fraction_two_way_high":0.9143,"decidable_fraction_three_way":0.8586,"decidable_fraction_three_way_low":0.8287,"decidable_fraction_three_way_high":0.8884,"decidable_population":5529,"validation_sample_size":438,"three_way_cost_fraction":0.0268,"three_way_cost_records":148,"decision_counts":{"automatable":230,"not_automatable":5299},"decision_split":{"automatable":{"count":230,"share":0.04159884246699222},"not_automatable":{"count":5299,"share":0.9584011575330078}},"diagnostic_work_type_counts":{"mixed":24,"physical":5275,"data_only":230}}}