ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Detection of disease-specific signatures in B cell repertoires of lymphomas using machine learning.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Driven BCR Modeling for Precision Immunology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Identification of a type 1 diabetes-associated T cell receptor repertoire signature from the human peripheral blood.Science advances · 2026Article
- Automated Classification of Lymphoma Subtypes From Histopathological Images Using a U-Net Deep Learning Model: Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Challenges and future directions of AIRR-seq-based diagnostics.Immunoinformatics (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Enhancing sequence alignment of adaptive immune receptors through multi-task deep learning.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- AI in optimized cancer treatment: laying the groundwork for interdisciplinary progress.Oxford open immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The classification of B cell lymphomas-mainly based on light microscopy evaluation by a pathologist-requires many years of training. Since the B cell receptor (BCR) of the lymphoma clonotype and the microenvironmental immune architecture are important features discriminating different lymphoma subsets, we asked whether BCR repertoire next-generation sequencing (NGS) of lymphoma-infiltrated tissues in conjunction with machine learning algorithms could have diagnostic utility in the subclassification of these cancers. We trained a random forest and a linear classifier via logistic regression based on patterns of clonal distribution, VDJ gene usage and physico-chemical properties of the top-n most frequently represented clonotypes in the BCR repertoires of 620 paradigmatic lymphoma samples-nodular lymphocyte predominant B cell lymphoma (NLPBL), diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)-alongside with 291 control samples. With regard to DLBCL and CLL, the models demonstrated optimal performance when utilizing only the most prevalent clonotype for classification, while in NLPBL-that has a dominant background of non-malignant bystander cells-a broader array of clonotypes enhanced model accuracy. Surprisingly, the straightforward logistic regression model performed best in this seemingly complex classification problem, suggesting linear separability in our chosen dimensions. It achieved a weighted F1-score of 0.84 on a test cohort including 125 samples from all three lymphoma entities and 58 samples from healthy individuals. Together, we provide proof-of-concept that at least the 3 studied lymphoma entities can be differentiated from each other using BCR repertoire NGS on lymphoma-infiltrated tissues by a trained machine learning model.
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.