NUQA: Estimating Cancer Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity and Evolution through Alignment-Free Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal next-generation sequencing of cancer patient samples has enhanced our understanding of the evolution and progression of various cancers. As a result, and due to our increasing knowledge of heterogeneity, such sampling is becoming increasingly common in research and clinical trial sample collections. Traditionally, the evolutionary analysis of these cohorts involves the use of an aligner followed by subsequent stringent downstream analyses. However, this can lead to large levels of information loss due to the vast mutational landscape that characterizes tumor samples. Here, we propose an alignment-free approach for sequence comparison-a well-established approach in a range of biological applications including typical phylogenetic classification. Such methods could be used to compare information collated in raw sequence files to allow an unsupervised assessment of the evolutionary trajectory of patient genomic profiles. In order to highlight this utility in cancer research we have applied our alignment-free approach using a previously established metric, Jensen-Shannon divergence, and a metric novel to this area, Hellinger distance, to two longitudinal cancer patient cohorts in glioma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma using our software, NUQA. We hypothesize that this approach has the potential to reveal novel information about the heterogeneity and evolutionary trajectory of spatiotemporal tumor samples, potentially revealing early events in tumorigenesis and the origins of metastases and recurrences. Key words: alignment-free, Hellinger distance, exome-seq, evolution, phylogenetics, longitudinal.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".