Observing Clonal Dynamics across Spatiotemporal Axes: A Prelude to Quantitative Fitness Models for Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to accurately model evolutionary dynamics in cancer would allow for prediction of progression and response to therapy. As a prelude to quantitative understanding of evolutionary dynamics, researchers must gather observations of in vivo tumor evolution. High-throughput genome sequencing now provides the means to profile the mutational content of evolving tumor clones from patient biopsies. Together with the development of models of tumor evolution, reconstructing evolutionary histories of individual tumors generates hypotheses about the dynamics of evolution that produced the observed clones. In this review, we provide a brief overview of the concepts involved in predicting evolutionary histories, and provide a workflow based on bulk and targeted-genome sequencing. We then describe the application of this workflow to time series data obtained for transformed and progressed follicular lymphomas (FL), and contrast the observed evolutionary dynamics between these two subtypes. We next describe results from a spatial sampling study of high-grade serous (HGS) ovarian cancer, propose mechanisms of disease spread based on the observed clonal mixtures, and provide examples of diversification through subclonal acquisition of driver mutations and convergent evolution. Finally, we state implications of the techniques discussed in this review as a necessary but insufficient step on the path to predictive modelling of disease dynamics.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".