MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A034: A robust ensemble-feature selection and machine learning approach to identify true somatic variants

2025· article· en· W4412163698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yun-Te David Lin, Anita S. Bowman, Erika Gedvilaite, Omkar Adhali, Scott A. Eckert, A. Rose Brannon

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatic cellFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceSelection (genetic algorithm)Feature (linguistics)Machine learningComputer scienceEnsemble learningComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As next-generation sequencing has become an integral part of clinical lab and molecular diagnostics services, identifying true somatic variants from sequencing data is crucial for targeted treatments as well as for cancer research. Traditional, rule-based methods, offering a systemic approach to filter out noise and artifacts, often rely on domain knowledge. Additionally, variant callers such as Mutect or highly sensitive Mutect2 reports SNVs based on their internal probabilistic models can pass noise and sequencing errors as true variants, hence requiring manual inspection. Here we propose a robust ensemble approach involving a series of feature selection algorithms, combining with an ensemble of machine learning (ML) models, to identify true somatic calls from the false positive calls. This approach, in conjunction with clinical workflow, can potentially eliminate manual inspection, minimize human errors and, in turn, reduce turnaround time. A cohort of 79056 SNVs from clinical sequencing of tumor-matched normal pairs were collected and divided into 80% for training, 20% for validation. These SNVs, analyzed through MSK-IMPACT, were manually reviewed individually as part of our clinical workflow and labeled as either reported (real) or dropped (artifacts). Using the training set, we constructed an array of feature elimination and selection algorithms, cross validated, and then fine-tuned on the validation set, to yield an optimal feature combination which was then used to train a binary super-learner consisting of 12 different ML models. To maximize the predictive confidence of the ML models, each individual model was recalibrated based on the probabilities of the respective labels and calibration thresholds, and finally a confidence interval was calculated for each prediction to reflect the certainty of the classifications. Our model demonstrated 0.99 (+- 0.01) accuracy, 0.98 (+- 0.01) recall, and 0.97 (+- 0.01) precision on a set of unseen SNVs (N=7085). Of these 7085 SNVs, 5000 were classified as real, 1943 were labeled as artifact, and only 142 calls were misclassified. These 142 uncertain calls were from contaminated samples, which would trigger manual inspection, and from SNVs that were dropped from merged events, which are real somatic events. We show here that combining a multitude of feature selection techniques and an ensemble of machine learning layers optimizes detection of variant artifacts identified from sequencing data. The finale ensemble model was pitted against its constituent models, on a validation set with 5-fold cross validation, and the model demonstrated consistency in prediction and improved classification stability. In our test set, 98% of the SNVs received a correct label and therefore would be exempt from manual review. The remaining 2% would be caught by traditional rule methods (contamination and merging). It is our goal to use this framework to improve quality and efficiency of the variant review process in clinical labs, leading to a potential improved clinical workflow for diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Citation Format: YunTe David. Lin, Pallavi Akella, Anita Bowman, Erika Gedvilaite, Omkar Adhali, Scott Eckert, Angela Rose. Brannon. A robust ensemble-feature selection and machine learning approach to identify true somatic variants [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 A034.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207