Genomic Biomarkers to Predict Resistance to Hypomethylating Agents in Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndromes Using Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We developed an unbiased framework to study the association of several mutations in predicting resistance to hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), analogous to consumer and commercial recommender systems in which customers who bought products A and B are likely to buy C: patients who have a mutation in gene A and gene B are likely to respond or not respond to HMAs. METHODS: We screened a cohort of 433 patients with MDS who received HMAs for the presence of common myeloid mutations in 29 genes that were obtained before the patients started therapy. The association between mutations and response was evaluated by the Apriori market basket analysis algorithm. Rules with the highest confidence (confidence that the association exists) and the highest lift (strength of the association) were chosen. We validated our biomarkers in samples from patients enrolled in the S1117 trial. RESULTS: Among 433 patients, 193 (45%) received azacitidine, 176 (40%) received decitabine, and 64 (15%) received HMA alone or in combination. The median age was 70 years (range, 31 to 100 years), and 28% were female. The median number of mutations per sample was three (range, zero to nine), and 176 patients (41%) had three or more mutations per sample. Association rules identified several genomic combinations as being highly associated with no response. These molecular signatures were present in 30% of patients with three or more mutations/sample with an accuracy rate of 87% in the training cohort and 93% in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Genomic biomarkers can identify, with high accuracy, approximately one third of patients with MDS who will not respond to HMAs. This study highlights the importance of machine learning technologies such as the recommender system algorithm in translating genomic data into useful clinical tools.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".