MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A035: Denoising Models Enhance Detection of Tumor-Derived cfDNA fragments and Cancer Tissue signal in Liquid Biopsy

2025· article· en· W4412163685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiva Farashahi, Yifan Wu, Elie Massaad, Feras Hantash, Hutan Ashrafian, Dorna Kashef, Kieran Chacko

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquid biopsyCancerBiopsyCancer detectionMedicinePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylation profiling enables non-invasive early cancer detection and tissue-of-origin (TOO) localization. In early-stage disease, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) comprises ∼0.05% of the total cfDNA, with the remainder originating from hematopoietic and other non-malignant tissues, significantly limiting detection sensitivity. Filtering non-tumor fragments can improve tumor-specific signal, but distinguishing ctDNA from non-tumor methylation patterns remains challenging due to biological overlap and technical noise. Generative models, particularly denoising diffusion models (DDMs), are well-suited for cfDNA analysis due to their capacity to model complex data distributions perturbed by structured and stochastic noise. Building on this, we developed a novel approach that adapts DDMs to learn non-cancer cfDNA methylation patterns and filter fragment-level data, thereby enhancing tumor-derived signal and TOO inference. Peripheral blood samples (CORE-HH study; NCT05435066) were collected in 9 cancer types from treatment-naïve cancer patients (N=401) and individuals with no reported cancer, evenly distributed across ages (N=100). cfDNA was extracted from plasma and profiled using a custom 18.6 Mb targeted bisulfite sequencing hybrid capture assay. cfDNA fragments were pre-processed to retain only CpG sites, with methylation states encoded as binary sequences. U-Net based Denoising Diffusion Implicit models (DDIMs) were trained on these sequences to learn the underlying methylation patterns in non-cancer cfDNA (N=80). Mean Squared Error was used as reconstruction error to identify and retain tumor derived cfDNA fragments. Tumor-derived fragments, being out-of-distribution (OOD) relative to the training data, exhibit higher errors than non-cancer fragments, allowing for their effective identification. OOD thresholds per genomic start location were established from cfDNA fragments in held-out non-cancer samples (N=20). To predict TOO across all cancer samples, we trained a four-layer feed-forward neural network using five distinct metrics that quantify informative methylation signals at each genomic region of interest (Farashahi et al. (2024), Clin Cancer Res, 30). Performance was evaluated using 10-fold cross validation and reported for samples with tumor fraction greater than 0.1% (N=227). Filtering the samples using 90th percentile OOD thresholds revealed a significant correlation (Kendall’s τ=0.5) between the estimated tumor fraction of samples and the fraction of retained reads. Keeping only these reads increased the estimated tumor fraction ten-fold. Our TOO multi-class classification on filtered cfDNA achieved 87% balanced accuracy (BA) versus 78% BA on unfiltered cfDNA. These findings demonstrate that denoising-based OOD models can effectively learn non-tumor cfDNA methylation patterns despite inherent noise in cfDNA and filter fragment-level data to enhance tumor-derived signal. This novel approach improves TOO resolution and can increase the clinical utility of multi-cancer early detection by guiding diagnostic workup. Citation Format: Shiva Farashahi, Yifan Wu, Elie Massaad, Feras Hantash, Hutan Ashrafian, Dorna Kashef, Kieran Chacko. Denoising Models Enhance Detection of Tumor-Derived cfDNA fragments and Cancer Tissue signal in Liquid Biopsy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; 2025 Jul 10-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(13_Suppl):Abstract nr A035.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207