Engineered in-vitro cell line mixtures and robust evaluation of computational methods for clonal decomposition and longitudinal dynamics in cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterization and quantification of tumour clonal populations over time via longitudinal sampling are essential components in understanding and predicting the response to therapeutic interventions. Computational methods for inferring tumour clonal composition from deep-targeted sequencing data are ubiquitous, however due to the lack of a ground truth biological data, evaluating their performance is difficult. In this work, we generate a benchmark data set that simulates tumour longitudinal growth and heterogeneity by in vitro mixing of cancer cell lines with known proportions. We apply four different algorithms to our ground truth data set and assess their performance in inferring clonal composition using different metrics. We also analyse the performance of these algorithms on breast tumour xenograft samples. We conclude that methods that can simultaneously analyse multiple samples while accounting for copy number alterations as a factor in allelic measurements exhibit the most accurate predictions. These results will inform future functional genomics oriented studies of model systems where time series measurements in the context of therapeutic interventions are becoming increasingly common. These studies will need computational models which accurately reflect the multi-factorial nature of allele measurement in cancer including, as we show here, segmental aneuploidies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".