MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B101: Subclonal drift predicts tumor response to treatment

2025· article· en· W4415444599 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Salazar, Andrew Chen, Madison Stoddard, T. Ryan Gregory, Arijit Chakravarty

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationGenetic driftDominance (genetics)CancerPopulation meanFixation (population genetics)Genetic modelSurvival analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The failure of long-term treatment responses in cancer has been demonstrated in some cases to be due to the existence of small, resistant tumor subpopulations (subclones). ​The prediction of the time-scale for treatment failure depends on the rate of growth of these resistant subclones under treatment, referred to here as the “turnover rate” of the tumor.​ Here, using simulations of subclonal dynamics, we demonstrate a method that uses the baseline of neutral genetic drift during the early stages of treatment to estimate the turnover rate, and therefore the long-term treatment response. Methods: We used a set of standard computational models derived from evolutionary theory to address this question through simulations. First, we used a Moran birth-death model to estimate the range of subpopulation sizes that given a certain fitness advantage would have a high probability of sweeping to dominance in the tumor (“fixation”). We then used a Gillespie algorithm to simulate the growth of a small subpopulation with a fitness advantage against a background population of subclones that lack a fitness advantage under the same conditions; these subpopulations vary in their sizes due to neutral drift. From simulations of fit subpopulations of small sizes, we then calculated the dependence of time to fixation of the resistant subclone on the turnover rate.​ From the simulations of neutral drift, we implemented a variety of turnover rates and found their impact on the population variance in fitness across the subclones undergong drift. Then, we used this relation to predict the minimum turnover rate for a resistant subclone to fixate for a given level of population variance in fitness. Results: We noted that undetectably small subclone sizes are still likely to fixate in the population given a slight growth advantage. We quantified the time to fixation of these small, fit subclones, showing a decrease in fixation time with higher turnover rates and growth advantages. In simulations of neutral drift, we found that the variance of the subclonal population sizes increases roughly linearly with both time and turnover rate. ​From this, we were able to accurately predict the turnover rate given measurements of subclonal dynamics. Conclusions: We find that measurements of neutral drift during pre-treatment or early-treatment stages can be used to set a baseline for the fitness advantage required by resistant subclones to dominate. This in turn can be used to predict the time for a small, fit resistant subclone to fixate in the tumor population. This approach has practical implications for the design of genomic algorithms to predict the emergence of resistance in tumors based on changes in their mutational profiles from next-generation sequencing data. Citation Format: Michael Salazar, Andrew Chen, Madison Stoddard, T. Ryan Gregory, Arijit Chakravarty. Subclonal drift predicts tumor response to treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2025 Oct 22-26; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2025;24(10 Suppl):Abstract nr B101.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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 venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207