Statistically identifying tumor suppressors and oncogenes from pan-cancer genome-sequencing data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Several tools exist to identify cancer driver genes based on somatic mutation data. However, these tools do not account for subclasses of cancer genes: oncogenes, which undergo gain-of-function events, and tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) which undergo loss-of-function. A method which accounts for these subclasses could improve performance while also suggesting a mechanism of action for new putative cancer genes. RESULTS: We develop a panel of five complementary statistical tests and assess their performance against a curated set of 99 HiConf cancer genes using a pan-cancer dataset of 1.7 million mutations. We identify patient bias as a novel signal for cancer gene discovery, and use it to significantly improve detection of oncogenes over existing methods (AUROC = 0.894). Additionally, our test of truncation event rate separates oncogenes and TSGs from one another (AUROC = 0.922). Finally, a random forest integrating the five tests further improves performance and identifies new cancer genes, including CACNG3, HDAC2, HIST1H1E, NXF1, GPS2 and HLA-DRB1. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All mutation data, instructions, functions for computing the statistics and integrating them, as well as the HiConf gene panel, are available at www.github.com/Bose-Lab/Improved-Detection-of-Cancer-Genes. CONTACT: rbose@dom.wustl.edu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it