Community Assessment of the Predictability of Cancer Protein and Phosphoprotein Levels from Genomics and Transcriptomics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is driven by genomic alterations, but the processes causing this disease are largely performed by proteins. However, proteins are harder and more expensive to measure than genes and transcripts. To catalyze developments of methods to infer protein levels from other omics measurements, we leveraged crowdsourcing via the NCI-CPTAC DREAM proteogenomic challenge. We asked for methods to predict protein and phosphorylation levels from genomic and transcriptomic data in cancer patients. The best performance was achieved by an ensemble of models, including as predictors transcript level of the corresponding genes, interaction between genes, conservation across tumor types, and phosphosite proximity for phosphorylation prediction. Proteins from metabolic pathways and complexes were the best and worst predicted, respectively. The performance of even the best-performing model was modest, suggesting that many proteins are strongly regulated through translational control and degradation. Our results set a reference for the limitations of computational inference in proteogenomics. A record of this paper's transparent peer review process is included in the Supplemental Information.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it