Evaluative Methodology for HRD Testing: Development of Standard Tools for Consistency Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) has emerged as a critical prognostic and predictive biomarker in oncology. However, current testing methods, especially those reliant on targeted panels, are plagued by inconsistent results from the same samples. This highlights the urgent need for standardized benchmarks to evaluate HRD assay performance. In phases IIa and IIb of the Chinese HRD Harmonization Project, we developed ten pairs of well-characterized DNA reference materials derived from lung, breast, and melanoma cancer cell lines and their matched normal cell lines, keeping each paired with seven cancer-to-normal mass ratios. Reference datasets for allele-specific copy number variations (ASCNVs) and HRD scores were established and validated using three sequencing methods and nine analytical pipelines. The genomic instability scores (GISs) of the reference materials ranged from 11 to 96, enabling validation across various thresholds. The ASCNV reference datasets covered a genomic span of 2340 to 2749 Mb, equivalent to 81.2% to 95.4% of the autosomes in the 37d5 reference genome. These benchmarks were subsequently utilized to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of four HRD panel assays, revealing significant variability in both ASCNV detection and HRD scores. The concordance between panel-detected GISs and reference GISs ranged from 0.81 to 0.94, with only two assays exhibiting high overall agreement with Myriad MyChoice CDx for HRD classification. This study also identified specific challenges in ASCNV detection in HRD-related regions and the profound impact of high ploidy on consistency. The established HRD reference materials and datasets provide a robust toolkit for objective evaluation of HRD testing.
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 | 0.186 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".