Fig. 6

Construction and validation of the DAMP-related signature for LUAD patients. (A-B) Analysis of LASSO regression in TCGA database. The determination of “lambda” for optimal selection of gene signature. (C) Coefficients of the 9 prognostic molecules in the risk model. (D) Univariate Cox analysis evaluates the prognostic value of the DAMP genes in terms of OS; (E) Risk scores distribution, survival status of each patient, and heatmaps of prognostic 9- gene signature in TCGA dataset; (F) A Sankey plot showing the distribution of alive/dead status and subtypes of DAMP. (G) Kaplan–Meier analyses demonstrating the prognostic significance of the risk model in TCGA and GSE31210 cohort. OS and PFS between the two subtypes displayed in the TCGA-LUAD cohort and OS and DFS in the GSE1210. (H) Comparison of AUC of one-, three- and five- year OS and PFS in TCGA dataset, and OS and DFS in the GSE1210. P values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum test or log-rank test. (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001)