ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Mechanistic learning to predict and understand minimal residual disease.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mechanistic modeling has long been used as a tool to describe the dynamics of biological systems, especially cancer in response to treatment. Their key advantage lies in interpretability of relationships between input parameters and outcomes of interest. Mechanistic models may also be calibrated to a cohort of patients and scaled up to generate a simulated set of virtual patients whose aggregate behavior reproduces key characteristics of the real patient population. In contrast, machine learning techniques offer strong prediction performance, especially for high dimensional datasets that are common in oncology. Here, we employ a Mechanstic Learning framework that combines the advantages of both approaches by training machine learning models on mechanistic parameters inferred from clinical patient data. We assess the ability of virtual clinical cohorts for the purpose of 1) scaling up small cohort sizes and 2) balancing unbalanced patient subgroups in the setting of BCR::ABL1 positive lymphoblastic leukemia. Our mechanistic model (a Markov chain model) contains sixteen parameters that describe the rate of cell fate transitions that occur in patients with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The machine learning (a ridge logistic regression model) is trained on these parameters to predict two clinically-relevant features: BCR::ABL1 fusion gene status (positive or negative) and minimal residual disease status (positive or negative) post-induction chemotherapy. Model training is done in an iterative fashion to assess which (and how many) parameters are critical to maintain high predictive performance. Using machine learning models trained on the clinical flow-cytometry data, we find that the stem-like cell state alone is the most predictive feature for both BCR::ABL1-positive and MRD-positive disease, with composite scores (defined as the average of accuracy, balanced accuracy, and area under the curve) of 0.80 and 0.67, respectively. By comparison, mechanistic learning achieves comparable or improved composite scores for BCR::ABL1-positive and MRD-positive disease, with scores of 0.81 and 0.71, respectively, using only de-differentiation for BCR::ABL1 and stem-state persistence together with differentiation-directed exit for MRD. Virtual Patient (VP) expansion is informative for robustness analysis and class balancing, but full cohort expansion introduced additional heterogeneity, reduced predictive performance, and required larger models, whereas VP-based balancing yielded only a modest gain over class weighting at substantially greater computational cost. In summary, a mechanistic-learning approach not only preserves predictive performance, but also provides a biological hypothesis for why stemness is predictive of these clinically relevant outcomes.
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.