Collaborative intra-tumor heterogeneity detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Despite the remarkable advances in sequencing and computational techniques, noise in the data and complexity of the underlying biological mechanisms render deconvolution of the phylogenetic relationships between cancer mutations difficult. Besides that, the majority of the existing datasets consist of bulk sequencing data of single tumor sample of an individual. Accurate inference of the phylogenetic order of mutations is particularly challenging in these cases and the existing methods are faced with several theoretical limitations. To overcome these limitations, new methods are required for integrating and harnessing the full potential of the existing data. RESULTS: We introduce a method called Hintra for intra-tumor heterogeneity detection. Hintra integrates sequencing data for a cohort of tumors and infers tumor phylogeny for each individual based on the evolutionary information shared between different tumors. Through an iterative process, Hintra learns the repeating evolutionary patterns and uses this information for resolving the phylogenetic ambiguities of individual tumors. The results of synthetic experiments show an improved performance compared to two state-of-the-art methods. The experimental results with a recent Breast Cancer dataset are consistent with the existing knowledge and provide potentially interesting findings. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code for Hintra is available at https://github.com/sahandk/HINTRA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".