Omics-based deep learning approaches for lung cancer decision-making and therapeutics development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer has been the most common and the leading cause of cancer deaths globally. Besides clinicopathological observations and traditional molecular tests, the advent of robust and scalable techniques for nucleic acid analysis has revolutionized biological research and medicinal practice in lung cancer treatment. In response to the demands for minimally invasive procedures and technology development over the past decade, many types of multi-omics data at various genome levels have been generated. As omics data grow, artificial intelligence models, particularly deep learning, are prominent in developing more rapid and effective methods to potentially improve lung cancer patient diagnosis, prognosis and treatment strategy. This decade has seen genome-based deep learning models thriving in various lung cancer tasks, including cancer prediction, subtype classification, prognosis estimation, cancer molecular signatures identification, treatment response prediction and biomarker development. In this study, we summarized available data sources for deep-learning-based lung cancer mining and provided an update on recent deep learning models in lung cancer genomics. Subsequently, we reviewed the current issues and discussed future research directions of deep-learning-based lung cancer genomics research.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it