Diagnostic classification of childhood cancer using multiscale transcriptomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The causes of pediatric cancers' distinctiveness compared to adult-onset tumors of the same type are not completely clear and not fully explained by their genomes. In this study, we used an optimized multilevel RNA clustering approach to derive molecular definitions for most childhood cancers. Applying this method to 13,313 transcriptomes, we constructed a pediatric cancer atlas to explore age-associated changes. Tumor entities were sometimes unexpectedly grouped due to common lineages, drivers or stemness profiles. Some established entities were divided into subgroups that predicted outcome better than current diagnostic approaches. These definitions account for inter-tumoral and intra-tumoral heterogeneity and have the potential of enabling reproducible, quantifiable diagnostics. As a whole, childhood tumors had more transcriptional diversity than adult tumors, maintaining greater expression flexibility. To apply these insights, we designed an ensemble convolutional neural network classifier. We show that this tool was able to match or clarify the diagnosis for 85% of childhood tumors in a prospective cohort. If further validated, this framework could be extended to derive molecular definitions for all cancer types.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".