MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095681424 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu276

Detecting independent and recurrent copy number aberrations using interval graphs

2014· article· en· W2095681424 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hsin-Ta Wu, Iman Hajirasouliha, Benjamin J. Raphael

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBurroughs Wellcome FundNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Somatic copy number aberrations SCNAS: are frequent in cancer genomes, but many of these are random, passenger events. A common strategy to distinguish functional aberrations from passengers is to identify those aberrations that are recurrent across multiple samples. However, the extensive variability in the length and position of SCNA: s makes the problem of identifying recurrent aberrations notoriously difficult. RESULTS: We introduce a combinatorial approach to the problem of identifying independent and recurrent SCNA: s, focusing on the key challenging of separating the overlaps in aberrations across individuals into independent events. We derive independent and recurrent SCNA: s as maximal cliques in an interval graph constructed from overlaps between aberrations. We efficiently enumerate all such cliques, and derive a dynamic programming algorithm to find an optimal selection of non-overlapping cliques, resulting in a very fast algorithm, which we call RAIG (Recurrent Aberrations from Interval Graphs). We show that RAIG outperforms other methods on simulated data and also performs well on data from three cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). In contrast to existing approaches that employ various heuristics to select independent aberrations, RAIG optimizes a well-defined objective function. We show that this allows RAIG to identify rare aberrations that are likely functional, but are obscured by overlaps with larger passenger aberrations. AVAILABILITY: http://compbio.cs.brown.edu/software.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207