spongEffects: ceRNA modules offer patient-specific insights into the miRNA regulatory landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Despite significant improvements in prevention and treatment, mortality remains high for many cancer types. Hence, innovative methods that use molecular data to stratify patients and identify biomarkers are needed. Promising biomarkers can also be inferred from competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) networks that capture the gene-miRNA gene regulatory landscape. Thus far, the role of these biomarkers could only be studied globally but not in a sample-specific manner. To mitigate this, we introduce spongEffects, a novel method that infers subnetworks (or modules) from ceRNA networks and calculates patient- or sample-specific scores related to their regulatory activity. RESULTS: We show how spongEffects can be used for downstream interpretation and machine learning tasks such as tumor classification and for identifying subtype-specific regulatory interactions. In a concrete example of breast cancer subtype classification, we prioritize modules impacting the biology of the different subtypes. In summary, spongEffects prioritizes ceRNA modules as biomarkers and offers insights into the miRNA regulatory landscape. Notably, these module scores can be inferred from gene expression data alone and can thus be applied to cohorts where miRNA expression information is lacking. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://bioconductor.org/packages/devel/bioc/html/SPONGE.html.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".