Analysis demonstrates high predictive value and sensitivity in tumor samples, highlighting precision in cancer subtype identification.
Calculation of hierarchical positive predictive value (hPPV) and hierarchical sensitivity (hSens). Hierarchical metrics were calculated per sample with values ranging from 0 to 1.0, and then averaged across all samples. The schematic shows level predictions where the “root node” is the broadest category, and not counted toward the calculation. (a) Illustrates 100% hPPV and hSens; (b) illustrates 100% hPPV and 67% hSens; (c) illustrates 67% hPPV and 67% hSens; and (d) illustrates 100% hPPV and 100% hSens, where the model made a more granular prediction than “truth” diagnosis. For example, we commonly receive specimens with a diagnosis of “metastatic carcinoma, consistent with known breast primary” without specifying the subtype. Most likely the cancer was subtyped, but the information wasn’t supplied to us.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: