Multisite clinical cross-validation and variant interpretation of a next generation sequencing panel for lymphoid cancer prognostication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Genomic sequencing of lymphomas is under-represented in routine clinical testing despite having prognostic and predictive value. Clinical implementation is challenging due to a lack of consensus on reportable targets and a paucity of reference samples. We organised a cross-validation study of a lymphoma-tailored next-generation sequencing panel between two College of American Pathologists (CAP)-accredited clinical laboratories to mitigate these challenges. METHODS: A consensus for the genomic targets was discussed between the two institutes based on recurrence in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and T-cell lymphomas. Using the same genomic targets, each laboratory ordered libraries independently and a cross-validation study was designed to exchange samples (8 cell lines and 22 clinical samples) and their FASTQ files. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the panel when comparing different library preparation and bioinformatic workflows was between 97% and 99% and specificity was 100% when a 5% limit of detection cut-off was applied. To evaluate how the current standards for variant classification of tumours apply to lymphomas, the Association for Molecular Pathology/American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP and OncoKB classification systems were applied to the panel. The majority of variants were assigned a possibly actionable class or likely pathogenic due to more limited evidence in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-validation study highlights the benefits of sample and data exchange for clinical validation and provided a framework for reporting the findings in lymphoid malignancies.
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 | 0.058 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".