ConsensusDriver Improves upon Individual Algorithms for Predicting Driver Alterations in Different Cancer Types and Individual Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Existing cancer driver prediction methods are based on very different assumptions and each of them can detect only a particular subset of driver genes. Here we perform a comprehensive assessment of 18 driver prediction methods on more than 3,400 tumor samples from 15 cancer types, all to determine their suitability in guiding precision medicine efforts. We categorized these methods into five groups: functional impact on proteins in general (FI) or specific to cancer (FIC), cohort-based analysis for recurrent mutations (CBA), mutations with expression correlation (MEC), and methods that use gene interaction network-based analysis (INA). The performance of driver prediction methods varied considerably, with concordance with a gold standard varying from 9% to 68%. FI methods showed relatively poor performance (concordance <22%), while CBA methods provided conservative results but required large sample sizes for high sensitivity. INA methods, through the integration of genomic and transcriptomic data, and FIC methods, by training cancer-specific models, provided the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. As the methods were found to predict different subsets of driver genes, we propose a novel consensus-based approach, ConsensusDriver, which significantly improves the quality of predictions (20% increase in sensitivity) in patient subgroups or even individual patients. Consensus-based methods like ConsensusDriver promise to harness the strengths of different driver prediction paradigms. Significance: These findings assess state-of-the-art cancer driver prediction methods and develop a new and improved consensus-based approach for use in precision oncology. Cancer Res; 78(1); 290–301. ©2017 AACR.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".