Abstract A029: Evaluating and interpreting scGPT: A foundation model for single-cell biology in real-world cancer clinical trial data
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The success of large language models (LLMs) with attention mechanisms in natural language processing has inspired a series of LLMs for single-cell analysis, such as scGPT. Such LLMs claim to have excellent performance as foundation models across various downstream tasks. This study aims to validate scGPT and explore its potential in cancer research using real-world clinical trial data. We assessed scGPT's performance in both zero-shot and fine-tuned scenarios on various tasks using single-nucleus sequencing data from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients undergoing different treatments, including ones treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Our methodology encompassed a comprehensive evaluation of scGPT's capabilities, including zero-shot clustering, gene expression prediction, and cell reconstruction. We fine-tuned the model for downstream tasks like cell type annotation, treatment perturbation prediction, and gene regulatory network inference. Additionally, we extracted and analyzed multi-head, multi-layer embeddings and attention matrices, visualizing the flow of information within the model and how they respond to different perturbations or fine-tuning objectives to investigate the model's learning process and its correlation with biological information. The study utilized two main datasets for fine-tuning and evaluating scGPT: an unpublished clinical trial dataset featuring metastatic PDAC patients under three comparative treatment arms with pre- and on-treatment single-nucleus sequencing data, and a published clinical trial dataset containing sequencing data from PDAC patients who underwent various treatment regimens. Our results validate scGPT's potential to effectively extract biological information as a foundation model for single-cell biology. For zero-shot, scGPT demonstrated strong performance in tasks like clustering, while showing areas with suboptimal performance like gene expression prediction and reconstruction. In addition, fine-tuning significantly boosts the model's capabilities across various tasks. The model responds well to multiple fine-tuning objectives, capturing information that distinguishes between individuals and treatments, and accurately predicting patient and treatment groups at the single-cell level. The analysis of model structure and information flow revealed that multi-head attention and representations could, to some extent, capture biological information. For example, the model’s attention to certain genes varies in different heads and layers, with being altered to certain patterns responding to fine-tuning objectives. Our analysis of the model's architecture and attention mechanisms offers preliminary insights into the relationship between model behavior and biological processes. It also provides a framework for interpreting complex biological information through the lens of attention mechanisms in single cell LLMs, paving the way for future studies exploring the intersection of foundation models and cancer biology, potentially leading to transformative progress in clinical cancer care. Citation Format: Runzi Tan, Haotian Cui, Bo Wang, Kimberly Perez, Andressa Dias Costa, Alexander Jordan, Thomas Karacic, Dalia Elganainy, Dan Y Gui, Suryun Kim, Chen Yuan, Morgan Truitt, Michael Downes, Ronald Evans, Tae Gyu Oh, Peter O’Dwyer, Andrew Aguirre, Jonathan A Nowak, Brian Wolpin, Simona Cristea. Evaluating and interpreting scGPT: A foundation model for single-cell biology in real-world cancer clinical trial data [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Advances in Pancreatic Cancer Research; 2024 Sep 15-18; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(17 Suppl_2):Abstract nr A029.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».