ArticleGenome research2023
Modeling and predicting cancer clonal evolution with reinforcement learning.
Article in Genome research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-cell omics data-driven decoding of tumor clonal evolution through reinforcement learning.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Inferring and summarizing tumor phylogenies from bulk DNA data.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2026Article
- General-purpose topology-aware embedding of tumor phylogenetic trees with graph neural networks.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Bayesian inference of fitness landscapes via tree-structured branching processes.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- CNRein: an evolution-aware deep reinforcement learning algorithm for single-cell DNA copy number calling.Genome biology · 2025Article
- A latent variable model for evaluating mutual exclusivity and co-occurrence between driver mutations in cancer.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Systems Biology in ELIXIR: modelling in the spotlight.F1000Research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer results from an evolutionary process that typically yields multiple clones with varying sets of mutations within the same tumor. Accurately modeling this process is key to understanding and predicting cancer evolution. Here, we introduce clone to mutation (CloMu), a flexible and low-parameter tree generative model of cancer evolution. CloMu uses a two-layer neural network trained via reinforcement learning to determine the probability of new mutations based on the existing mutations on a clone. CloMu supports several prediction tasks, including the determination of evolutionary trajectories, tree selection, causality and interchangeability between mutations, and mutation fitness. Importantly, previous methods support only some of these tasks, and many suffer from overfitting on data sets with a large number of mutations. Using simulations, we show that CloMu either matches or outperforms current methods on a wide variety of prediction tasks. In particular, for simulated data with interchangeable mutations, current methods are unable to uncover causal relationships as effectively as CloMu. On breast cancer and leukemia cohorts, we show that CloMu determines similarities and causal relationships between mutations as well as the fitness of mutations. We validate CloMu's inferred mutation fitness values for the leukemia cohort by comparing them to clonal proportion data not used during training, showing high concordance. In summary, CloMu's low-parameter model facilitates a wide range of prediction tasks regarding cancer evolution on increasingly available cohort-level data sets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.