MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059736685 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq393

Inferring cancer subnetwork markers using density-constrained biclustering

2010· article· en· W2059736685 on OpenAlexafffund
Phuong Dao, Recep Çolak, Raheleh Salari, Flavia Moser, Elai Davicioni, Alexander Schönhuth, Martin Ester

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsSubnetworkComputer scienceCancerComputational biologySoftwareBreast cancerBiclusteringArtificial intelligenceBiologyCluster analysisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Recent genomic studies have confirmed that cancer is of utmost phenotypical complexity, varying greatly in terms of subtypes and evolutionary stages. When classifying cancer tissue samples, subnetwork marker approaches have proven to be superior over single gene marker approaches, most importantly in cross-platform evaluation schemes. However, prior subnetwork-based approaches do not explicitly address the great phenotypical complexity of cancer. RESULTS: We explicitly address this and employ density-constrained biclustering to compute subnetwork markers, which reflect pathways being dysregulated in many, but not necessarily all samples under consideration. In breast cancer we achieve substantial improvements over all cross-platform applicable approaches when predicting TP53 mutation status in a well-established non-cross-platform setting. In colon cancer, we raise prediction accuracy in the most difficult instances from 87% to 93% for cancer versus non-cancer and from 83% to (astonishing) 92%, for with versus without liver metastasis, in well-established cross-platform evaluation schemes. AVAILABILITY: Software is available on request.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207