Table 3.

Prognostic subclusters common to both methods after meta-analysis of Cox proportional hazards regression model in 6 cohorts of HGSTOC patients

Subcluster	SSZ score			xCell enrichment score
	HR [95% CI]	p value	BH adj. p value	HR [95% CI]	p value	BH adj. p value
BC_ IGHG1_PRDM1	0.82 [0.74–0.92]	< 0.001	0.007	0.08 [0.01–0.50]	0.007	0.049
FB_CALB2	1.47 [1.20–1.81]	< 0.001	0.007	57.73 [9.34–357.00]	< 0.001	< 0.001
FB_MYH11	1.25 [1.05–1.50]	0.014	0.099	106.52 [14.3–790.0]	< 0.001	< 0.001
FB_COMP	1.23 [1.10–1.37]	< 0.001	0.007	4.95 [1.29–19.02]	0.020	0.091
TUM_BAMBI	1.47 [1.09–1.99]	0.012	0.099	34.11 [4.89–238.10]	< 0.001	0.004
EC_PROX1	1.29 [1.00–1.65]	0.049	0.229	10.35 [1.42–75.13]	0.020	0.091

Subclusters significantly affecting OS based on two different scoring methods: subcluster-specific z-score (SSZ score; using transcriptomic markers) and the xCell enrichment score (see “Methods”). The meta-analysis hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival, p values and the Benjamini-Hochberg-corrected (BH) p values are included. Full list of all HR and p values for all subclusters in both meta-analyses can be found in Additional file 11: Table S9 (SSZ scores) and Additional file 12: Table S10 (xCell). However, the hazard ratio values are not combined in any way between subclusters or between scoring systems and meta-analyses were conducted per individual subcluster and scoring system. Phenotypes highlighted in the table were chosen based on p values of their meta-analyses which are scale independent