Classification of non-TCGA cancer samples to TCGA molecular subtypes using compact feature sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular subtypes, such as defined by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), delineate a cancer’s underlying biology, bringing hope to inform a patient’s prognosis and treatment plan. However, most approaches used in the discovery of subtypes are not suitable for assigning subtype labels to new cancer specimens from other studies or clinical trials. Here, we address this barrier by applying five different machine learning approaches to multi-omic data from 8,791 TCGA tumor samples comprising 106 subtypes from 26 different cancer cohorts to build models based upon small numbers of features that can classify new samples into previously defined TCGA molecular subtypes—a step toward molecular subtype application in the clinic. We validate select classifiers using external datasets. Predictive performance and classifier-selected features yield insight into the different machine-learning approaches and genomic data platforms. For each cancer and data type we provide containerized versions of the top-performing models as a public resource. • Five machine learning methods used to train classifiers for 106 TCGA cancer subtypes • Classifier models based upon small numbers of features from five omic data types • Insights into methods, data types, and cohort size for effective classification • Public resource for classifying non-TCGA patient samples to TCGA cancer subtypes Ellrott et al. provide a means to assign patient samples from clinical trials and other cancer genome studies to published TCGA molecular subtypes. Applying machine learning to data from five different molecular platforms for 8,791 TCGA tumor samples, they contribute a public resource of 737 top classifier models, which can form the foundation for clinical assay development.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".