Detecting independent and recurrent copy number aberrations using interval graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".