eTumorType, An Algorithm of Discriminating Cancer Types for Circulating Tumor Cells or Cell-Free DNAs in Blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the technology development on detecting circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell-free DNAs (cfDNAs) in blood, serum, and plasma, non-invasive diagnosis of cancer becomes promising. A few studies reported good correlations between signals from tumor tissues and CTCs or cfDNAs, making it possible to detect cancers using CTCs and cfDNAs. However, the detection cannot tell which cancer types the person has. To meet these challenges, we developed an algorithm, eTumorType, to identify cancer types based on copy number variations (CNVs) of the cancer founding clone. eTumorType integrates cancer hallmark concepts and a few computational techniques such as stochastic gradient boosting, voting, centroid, and leading patterns. eTumorType has been trained and validated on a large dataset including 18 common cancer types and 5327 tumor samples. eTumorType produced high accuracies (0.86-0.96) and high recall rates (0.79-0.92) for predicting colon, brain, prostate, and kidney cancers. In addition, relatively high accuracies (0.78-0.92) and recall rates (0.58-0.95) have also been achieved for predicting ovarian, breast luminal, lung, endometrial, stomach, head and neck, leukemia, and skin cancers. These results suggest that eTumorType could be used for non-invasive diagnosis to determine cancer types based on CNVs of CTCs and cfDNAs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".