Crowd-sourced benchmarking of single-sample tumor subclonal reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subclonal reconstruction algorithms use bulk DNA sequencing data to quantify parameters of tumor evolution, allowing an assessment of how cancers initiate, progress and respond to selective pressures. We launched the ICGC-TCGA (International Cancer Genome Consortium-The Cancer Genome Atlas) DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling Tumor Heterogeneity and Evolution Challenge to benchmark existing subclonal reconstruction algorithms. This 7-year community effort used cloud computing to benchmark 31 subclonal reconstruction algorithms on 51 simulated tumors. Algorithms were scored on seven independent tasks, leading to 12,061 total runs. Algorithm choice influenced performance substantially more than tumor features but purity-adjusted read depth, copy-number state and read mappability were associated with the performance of most algorithms on most tasks. No single algorithm was a top performer for all seven tasks and existing ensemble strategies were unable to outperform the best individual methods, highlighting a key research need. All containerized methods, evaluation code and datasets are available to support further assessment of the determinants of subclonal reconstruction accuracy and development of improved methods to understand tumor evolution.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".