MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570688054 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2016.0148

Clonality Inference from Single Tumor Samples Using Low-Coverage Sequence Data

2017· article· en· W2570688054 on OpenAlexaff
Nilgun Donmez, Salem Malikić, Alexander W. Wyatt, Martin Gleave, Colin C. Collins, S. Cenk Şahinalp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep sequencingTumor heterogeneityInferenceDNA sequencingBiologyComputational biologySolid tumorSample (material)Sequence (biology)Single cell sequencingGeneticsCancerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMutationExome sequencingGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inference of intra-tumor heterogeneity can provide valuable insight into cancer evolution. Somatic mutations detected by sequencing can help estimate the purity of a tumor sample and reconstruct its subclonal composition. Although several methods have been developed to infer intra-tumor heterogeneity, the majority of these tools rely on variant allele frequencies as estimated via ultra-deep sequencing from multiple samples of the same tumor. In practice, obtaining sequencing data from a large number of samples per patient is only feasible in a few cancer types such as liquid tumors, or in rare cases involving solid tumors selected for research. We introduce CTPsingle, which aims at inferring the subclonal composition by using low-coverage sequencing data from a single tumor sample. We show that CTPsingle is able to infer the purity and the clonality of single-sample tumors with high accuracy, even restricted to a coverage depth of ∼30 × .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207