MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362594648 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-5440

Abstract 5440: Deep-learning model for tumor type classification enables enhanced clinical decision support in cancer diagnosis

2023· article· en· W4362594648 on OpenAlexaff
Madison Darmofal, Shalabh Suman, Gurnit Atwal, Jie‐Fu Chen, Anna M. Varghese, Jason C. Chang, Anoop Balakrishnan Rema, Aijazuddin Syed, Quaid Morris, Michael Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndelCancerDeep learningMedicineDeep sequencingClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceComputational biologyMedical diagnosisOncologyMachine learningBioinformaticsGenomeGeneComputer scienceInternal medicineBiologyGeneticsPathologySingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Knowledge of a patient’s tumor type is essential for guiding clinical treatment decisions in cancer, but histologically-based diagnosis remains challenging for a subset of cancers. Genomic alterations are highly indicative of tumor type and can be used to build classifiers that predict diagnoses, but most genomic-based classification methods use whole genome sequencing (WGS) data which is not feasible for widespread clinical implementation at present. Clinical sequencing is typically performed using cancer gene panels that target individual mutations, often drivers, but previous tumor type classifiers developed using driver-based features alone perform poorly. We hypothesize that a classifier developed using state-of-the-art deep-learning methods and a sufficiently large training cohort would be able to overcome previous accuracy limitations and support the development of a clinically-relevant tumor type prediction model. Methods: We present Deep Genome-Derived Diagnosis (GDD-ENS), an ensemble-based deep-learning tumor type classification method trained using data from cancer gene panel sequencing. We specifically use data from MSK-IMPACT, an FDA-authorized clinical sequencing assay that reports genomic alterations including mutations, indels, copy number alterations, and gene fusions across 505 cancer-associated genes. We aggregated a discovery cohort of 35,372 patients with solid tumors profiled with MSK-IMPACT across 38 common cancer types and used this set to generate 4,487 somatic mutation features for development. Results: GDD-ENS achieves 78.8% accuracy on a held out validation cohort of 6971 patients. For the 71.9% of predictions assigned a high confidence by the model, accuracy increases to 92.7%, rivaling WGS-based models. We use Shapley Values to report prediction-specific feature importance, and aggregate them across cancer types to show GDD-ENS identifies known cancer type-genomic alteration trends. GDD-ENS also, with high accuracy, identifies patients with cancer types not included in the 38 common types using metrics derived from ensemble statistics. For patients where non-genomic information could further guide predictions, we implement a customizable prediction-specific adaptive prior distribution and report improved accuracy after adjusting predictions to account for features such as metastatic sample biopsy site. Finally, we apply GDD-ENS to a set of 1,123 patients with Cancers of Unknown Primary (CUP) and return high confidence predictions for 49% of these patients, in some cases matching predictions on CUP samples with diagnoses that were later confirmed through additional sampling and disease progression. Conclusions: Integrating GDD-ENS into prospective clinical sequencing workflows will enable clinically-relevant tumor type predictions that can guide treatment decisions in real-time. Citation Format: Madison Darmofal, Shalabh Suman, Gurnit Atwal, Jie-Fu Chen, Anna Varghese, Jason C. Chang, Anoop Balakrishnan Rema, Aijazuddin Syed, Quaid Morris, Michael Berger. Deep-learning model for tumor type classification enables enhanced clinical decision support in cancer diagnosis. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5440.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207