ConsensusDriver improves upon individual algorithms for predicting driver alterations in different cancer types and individual patients – a toolbox for precision oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In recent years, several large-scale cancer genomics studies have helped generate detailed molecular profiling datasets for many cancer types and thousands of patients. These datasets provide a unique resource for studying cancer driver prediction methods and their utility for precision oncology, both to predict driver genetic alterations in patient subgroups (e.g. defined by histology or clinical phenotype) or even individual patients. Methods We performed the most comprehensive assessment to date of 18 driver gene prediction methods, on more than 3,400 tumour samples, from 15 cancer types, to determine their suitability in guiding precision medicine efforts. These methods have diverse approaches, which can be classified into five categories: f unctional i mpact on proteins in general (FI) or specific to c ancer (FIC), c ohort- b ased a nalysis for recurrent mutations (CBA), m utations with e xpression c orrelation (MEC) and methods that use gene i nteraction n etwork-based a nalysis (INA). Results The performance of driver prediction methods varies considerably, with concordance with a gold-standard varying from 9% to 68%. FI methods show relatively poor performance (concordance <22%) while CBA methods provide conservative results, but require large sample sizes for high sensitivity. INA methods, through the integration of genomic and transcriptomic data, and FIC methods, by training cancer-specific models, provide the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. As the methods were found to predict different subsets of drivers, we propose a novel consensus-based approach, ConsensusDriver, which significantly improves the quality of predictions (20% increase in sensitivity). This tool can be applied to predict driver alterations in patient subgroups (e.g. defined by histology or clinical phenotype) or even individual patients. Conclusion Existing cancer driver prediction methods are based on very different assumptions and each of them can only detect a particular subset of driver events. Consensus-based methods, like ConsensusDriver, are thus a promising approach to harness the strengths of different driver prediction paradigms.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".