Identifying the tissues-of-origin of circulating cell-free DNAs is a promising way in noninvasive diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in sequencing technologies facilitate personalized disease-risk profiling and clinical diagnosis. In recent years, some great progress has been made in noninvasive diagnoses based on cell-free DNAs (cfDNAs). It exploits the fact that dead cells release DNA fragments into the circulation, and some DNA fragments carry information that indicates their tissues-of-origin (TOOs). Based on the signals used for identifying the TOOs of cfDNAs, the existing methods can be classified into three categories: cfDNA mutation-based methods, methylation pattern-based methods and cfDNA fragmentation pattern-based methods. In cfDNA mutation-based methods, the SNP information or the detected mutations in driven genes of certain diseases are employed to identify the TOOs of cfDNAs. Methylation pattern-based methods are developed to identify the TOOs of cfDNAs based on the tissue-specific methylation patterns. In cfDNA fragmentation pattern-based methods, cfDNA fragmentation patterns, such as nucleosome positioning or preferred end coordinates of cfDNAs, are used to predict the TOOs of cfDNAs. In this paper, the strategies and challenges in each category are reviewed. Furthermore, the representative applications based on the TOOs of cfDNAs, including noninvasive prenatal testing, noninvasive cancer screening, transplantation rejection monitoring and parasitic infection detection, are also reviewed. Moreover, the challenges and future work in identifying the TOOs of cfDNAs are discussed. Our research provides a comprehensive picture of the development and challenges in identifying the TOOs of cfDNAs, which may benefit bioinformatics researchers to develop new methods to improve the identification of the TOOs of cfDNAs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".