A community challenge to evaluate RNA-seq, fusion detection, and isoform quantification methods for cancer discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accurate identification and quantitation of RNA isoforms present in the cancer transcriptome is key for analyses ranging from the inference of the impacts of somatic variants to pathway analysis to biomarker development and subtype discovery. The ICGC-TCGA DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling in RNA (SMC-RNA) challenge was a crowd-sourced effort to benchmark methods for RNA isoform quantification and fusion detection from bulk cancer RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data. It concluded in 2018 with a comparison of 77 fusion detection entries and 65 isoform quantification entries on 51 synthetic tumors and 32 cell lines with spiked-in fusion constructs. We report the entries used to build this benchmark, the leaderboard results, and the experimental features associated with the accurate prediction of RNA species. This challenge required submissions to be in the form of containerized workflows, meaning each of the entries described is easily reusable through CWL and Docker containers at https://github.com/SMC-RNA-challenge. 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.
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 | 0.111 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.018 |
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".