HAVOC: Small-scale histomic mapping of biodiversity across entire tumor specimens using deep neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Intra-tumoral heterogeneity can wreak havoc on current precision medicine strategies due to challenges in sufficient sampling of geographically separated areas of biodiversity distributed across centimeter-scale tumor distances. In particular, modern tissue profiling approaches are still largely designed to only interrogate small tumor fragments; which may constitute a minute and non-representative fraction of the overall neoplasm. To address this gap, we developed a pipeline that leverages deep learning to define topographic histomorphologic fingerprints of tissue and create Histomic Atlases of Variation Of Cancers (HAVOC). Importantly, using a number of spatially-resolved readouts, including mass-spectrometry-based proteomics and immunohistochemisy, we demonstrate that these personalized atlases of histomic variation can define regional cancer boundaries with distinct biological programs. Using larger tumor specimens, we show that HAVOC can map spatial organization of cancer biodiversity spanning tissue coordinates separated by multiple centimeters. By applying this tool to guide profiling of 19 distinct geographic partitions from 6 high-grade gliomas, HAVOC revealed that distinct states of differentiation can often co-exist and be regionally distributed across individual tumors. Finally, to highlight generalizability, we further benchmark HAVOC on additional tumor types and experimental models of heterogeneity. Together, we establish HAVOC as a versatile and accessible tool to generate small-scale maps of tissue heterogeneity and guide regional deployment of molecular resources to relevant and biodiverse tumor niches.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".