MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403572232 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.17.618896

<i>In silico</i> generation of synthetic cancer genomes using generative AI

2024· preprint· en· W4403572232 on OpenAlexaff
Ander Díaz‐Navarro, Xindi Zhang, Bo Wang, Lincoln Stein

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn silicoGenerative grammarComputational biologyGenomeComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligenceGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cancer originates from alterations in the genome, and understanding how these changes lead to disease is crucial for achieving the goals of precision oncology. Connecting genomic alterations to health outcomes requires extensive computational analysis using accurate algorithms. Over the years, these algorithms have become increasingly sophisticated, but a severe shortage of open access gold-standard datasets presents a fundamental challenge. Since genomic data is considered personal health information, only an extremely limited number of deeply sequenced legacy cancer genomes can be shared and redistributed. As a result, tool benchmarking is often conducted on the same small set of genomes sequenced with older technologies and uncertain ground truths. This is a major obstacle to the development of improved analytic tools. To address this issue, we have developed OncoGAN, a novel generative AI tool that uses a combination of generative adversarial networks and tabular variational autoencoders to generate realistic but entirely synthetic cancer genomes based on training sets derived from large-scale genomic projects. Our results demonstrate that this approach accurately reproduces the scale, distribution, and characteristics of somatic point mutations, copy number alterations and structural variants across multiple common cancer types, while protecting donors’ privacy information. OncoGAN accurately recapitulates tumor type-specific mutational signatures as well as the positional distribution of somatic mutations. To evaluate the fidelity of the simulations, we tested the synthetic genomes using DeepTumour, a software capable of identifying tumor types based on mutational patterns, and demonstrated a high level of concordance between the synthetic genome tumor type and DeepTumour’s prediction of the type. We also showed that augmenting real donor data with OncoGAN-generated synthetic data could be used to train a more accurate version of DeepTumour. This tool will allow the generation of an extensive and realistic set of training and testing cancer genomes whose ground truth is known exactly. This advance provides computational biologists with the ability to develop realistic cancer genome benchmarking sets and make them available to the research community for the testing, development and enhancement of cancer genome analysis tools.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→