Identification of Conserved Evolutionary Trajectories in Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation As multi-region, time-series, and single cell sequencing data become more widely available, it is becoming clear that certain tumors share evolutionary characteristics with others. In the last few years, several computational methods have been developed with the goal of inferring the subclonal composition and evolutionary history of tumors from tumor biopsy sequencing data. However, the phylogenetic trees that they report differ significantly between tumors (even those with similar characteristics). Results In this paper, we present a novel combinatorial optimization method, CONETT, for detection of recurrent tumor evolution trajectories. Our method constructs a consensus tree of conserved evolutionary trajectories based on the information about temporal order of alteration events in a set of tumors. We apply our method to previously published datasets of 100 clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and 99 non-small-cell lung cancer patients and identify both conserved trajectories that were reported in the original studies, as well as new trajectories. Availability CONETT is implemented in C++ and available at https://github.com/ehodzic/CONETT .
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".