Crowd-sourced benchmarking of single-sample tumour subclonal reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tumours are dynamically evolving populations of cells. Subclonal reconstruction algorithms use bulk DNA sequencing data to quantify parameters of tumour evolution, allowing assessment of how cancers initiate, progress and respond to selective pressures. A plethora of subclonal reconstruction algorithms have been created, but their relative performance across the varying biological and technical features of real-world cancer genomic data is unclear. We therefore launched the ICGC-TCGA DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling -- Tumour Heterogeneity and Evolution Challenge. This seven-year community effort used cloud-computing to benchmark 31 containerized subclonal reconstruction algorithms on 51 simulated tumours. Each algorithm was scored for accuracy on seven independent tasks, leading to 12,061 total runs. Algorithm choice influenced performance significantly more than tumour features, but purity-adjusted read-depth, copy number state and read mappability were associated with performance of most algorithms on most tasks. No single algorithm was a top performer for all seven tasks and existing ensemble strategies were surprisingly unable to outperform the best individual methods, highlighting a key research need. All containerized methods, evaluation code and datasets are available to support further assessment of the determinants of subclonal reconstruction accuracy and development of improved methods to understand tumour evolution.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".