Before and After: Comparison of Legacy and Harmonized TCGA Genomic Data Commons’ Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a systematic analysis of the effects of synchronizing a large-scale, deeply characterized, multi-omic dataset to the current human reference genome, using updated software, pipelines, and annotations. For each of 5 molecular data platforms in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-mRNA and miRNA expression, single nucleotide variants, DNA methylation and copy number alterations-comprehensive sample, gene, and probe-level studies were performed, towards quantifying the degree of similarity between the 'legacy' GRCh37 (hg19) TCGA data and its GRCh38 (hg38) version as 'harmonized' by the Genomic Data Commons. We offer gene lists to elucidate differences that remained after controlling for confounders, and strategies to mitigate their impact on biological interpretation. Our results demonstrate that the hg19 and hg38 TCGA datasets are very highly concordant, promote informed use of either legacy or harmonized omics data, and provide a rubric that encourages similar comparisons as new data emerge and reference data evolve.
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 | 0.036 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".