Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

CN-SBM: Categorical Block Modelling For Primary and Residual Copy Number Variation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read CN-SBM, a bipartite categorical stochastic block model, jointly clusters tumor samples and genomic bins by copy-number state and then re-models the leftover variation, which carries independent survival signal.

desk verdict A sensible categorical SBM for CNV with a useful two-stage decomposition, but the headline fit comparison is scored under a rule that favors it, and the survival claim is exploratory. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22963 v1 pith:COC7TKWJ submitted 2025-06-28 stat.ML cs.LGq-bio.GN

Kevin Lam , William Daniels , J Maxwell Douglas , Daniel Lai , Samuel Aparicio , Benjamin Bloem-Reddy , Yongjin Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LGq-bio.GN MSC 62H3062F15
keywords copynumbervariationstochasticblockmodelcategoricaldataco-clusteringvariationalinferencetumorheterogeneitysurvivalanalysislow-gradeglioma
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Copy-number profiles are integer-valued and multimodal, so modeling them as Gaussian or Poisson can blur the very structure that defines tumor subgroups. The paper introduces CN-SBM, a bipartite stochastic block model in which each cell (or sample) and each genomic bin gets a latent cluster, and every cluster pair has its own categorical distribution over copy-number states. Because the model respects discreteness, it can be fit in two stages: the first stage captures dominant, large-scale alterations, and the second stage re-models the residual deviations that remain after subtracting the dominant pattern. On simulated and real cancer datasets the model reports the highest held-out log-likelihood on most benchmarks and the highest integrated completed likelihood on all of them, and in low-grade glioma the residual layer adds survival discrimination beyond the primary clusters. The care-worthy point is that structured signal can survive in the part of the data that is usually thrown away as noise.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the bipartite categorical stochastic block model: latent cluster assignments $g_i$ for rows (cells or samples), $h_j$ for columns (genomic bins), and per-cluster-pair categorical distributions $\pi_{(k,l)}$ over the discrete copy-number alphabet, with Dirichlet priors. Inference is mean-field coordinate-ascent variational inference, whose updates use digamma expectations of log block probabilities; the two-stage analysis works by assigning each entry its block's modal category to form a main matrix, subtracting that from the observed matrix to form residuals, then refitting the same model to the residual matrix.

What would settle it

Re-run the survival analysis on a separate low-grade glioma cohort with the residual-cluster inclusion rule fixed in advance rather than selected by p-values; if the C-index falls back toward the age-only 0.741, the claim that residual variation adds independent prognostic information fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that copy-number variation is better described by a categorical bipartite block model than by count or continuous co-clustering models, and that the fitted model yields a natural decomposition into primary and residual layers. The central discovery is empirical: once the dominant block pattern is subtracted from each cell-bin pair, the leftover residual matrix is not noise but contains structured, reproducible patterns—focal losses, gains, and widespread deletions—and in low-grade glioma data these residual clusters improve a Cox survival model from a C-index of 0.741 with age alone to 0.855 with age, main clusters, and residual clusters. The paper also claims that mean-field variational inference with empty-cluster support and a stochastic extension makes the fit efficient enough for cohorts of roughly a thousand samples at 500 kb resolution, with model selection handled automatically.

Load-bearing premise

The survival claim rests on the assumption that choosing which main and residual clusters to enter the Cox model after seeing their p-values did not inflate the concordance index; the paper reports no independent validation cohort.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Across simulated and real datasets, CN-SBM reports the highest integrated completed likelihood on all seven benchmarks and the highest held-out log-likelihood on most, so categorical modeling outperforms Poisson and empirical-block baselines on the paper's comparisons.
  • The two-stage decomposition turns copy-number data into interpretable layers: large-scale recurrent events in the main stage, and focal or sample-specific aberrations in the residual stage.
  • In low-grade glioma, patients sharing a primary copy-number cluster split into residual clusters with distinct survival trajectories, so residual variation is a candidate stratification feature.
  • The variational updates tolerate empty clusters, giving an implicit automated way to choose the number of cell and bin clusters, and the stochastic variant scales to large cohorts and finer bin resolutions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the residual prognostic signal replicates in an independent cohort, the same two-stage recipe could be applied directly to any integer-valued copy-number calling output, turning a standard preprocessing artifact into a stratification feature without new assays.
  • The categorical block model could be lifted to other discrete genomic readouts, such as allele-specific copy states, mutation multiplicity, or binarized methylation, where the same Gaussian or Poisson mismatch occurs.
  • The subtraction-based residual construction is post hoc; a generative two-layer model that treats primary modes and residual deviations as separate latent variables would let the decomposition be scored by likelihood and would make the main-residual split a testable hypothesis rather than an algorithmic step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CN-SBM, a bipartite categorical stochastic block model for integer copy-number states, with Dirichlet priors and mean-field variational inference, including missing-data weighting and a stochastic variational extension. A two-stage procedure fits the model, constructs a main-variation matrix from posterior modes, subtracts it from the data, and refits the model on the categorical residuals. The manuscript evaluates held-out log-likelihood, ICL, accuracy, and entropy against PoissonSBM, Blockcluster, k-means, and spectral biclustering on simulated data, single-cell PDX data, and TCGA bulk cohorts, and applies the two-stage decomposition to TCGA low-grade glioma survival analysis. The headline claims are that CN-SBM achieves the highest held-out log-likelihood across most datasets and the highest ICL across all datasets, and that residual clusters add independent prognostic information.

Significance. If the claims hold, CN-SBM would be a useful addition to CNV analysis: it respects the discrete and multimodal nature of copy-number states, scales through CAVI and SVI, and provides an interpretable primary/residual decomposition. The paper ships public code, gives a closed-form ELBO derivation in Appendix A.1, and evaluates on multiple real datasets with a held-out missingness protocol, which are genuine strengths. The main weaknesses are the asymmetric benchmark scoring in Table 1 and the in-sample survival model selection in Section 4; both bear directly on the paper's central claims and need to be addressed before the conclusions can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Appendix B.3] The headline benchmark comparison is asymmetric. The main text states that for PoissonSBM and Blockcluster, held-out log-likelihood and ICL in Table 1 are computed from empirical categorical block distributions estimated from the hard partitions, 'as the inferred probability distributions from their implementations generally yielded poorer results.' CN-SBM, by contrast, is scored under its own variational predictive distribution. Consequently, Table 1 does not compare fitted generative models: it compares CN-SBM's model-based prediction against a post-hoc categorical plug-in applied to the baselines' partitions. The finding that a categorical plug-in beats a Poisson plug-in is partly by construction, because the Poisson likelihood assigns much lower probability to individual copy-number values (Appendix B.2, Table 3). To support 'improved model fit,' the authors should report each method's own-model held-out log-likelihood and ICL under comparable model-selection settings, or explicitly reframe Table 1 as a comparison of hard-partition quality under a common empirical categorical scoring rule and move accuracy and entropy (Table 2) to the primary claim.
  2. [Section 3 and Appendix B.1] The prognostic claim is based on in-sample model selection. The final Cox model was obtained by inspecting p-values in the same LGG cohort, merging main clusters 1 and 2 after observing their similarity and refitting without the X chromosome, and adding residual clusters 3 and 8 because of their hazard-ratio significance. The reported C-index of 0.855 (SE = 0.019) is then computed on the same data used for selection, with no cross-validation, bootstrap correction, or external validation. This protocol is known to inflate discrimination, so the claim that residual variation 'provides complementary and independently prognostic information' is not yet supported. The authors should provide internal validation (e.g., cross-validated C-index or optimism-corrected bootstrap) or an independent cohort, and otherwise describe the analysis as exploratory.
  3. [Section 3 and Appendix B.1] The ICL comparison is not well-defined for baselines whose model size is not fixed. The ICL penalty in B.1 is written for a single K and L, but the text reports that PoissonSBM 'averaging 25 row clusters in BRCA despite K = 10' and Blockcluster also selects its own number of clusters; Table 1 still reports ICL for these methods under the empirical block distributions. The authors need to specify which K and L were used in the ICL penalty for each fitted model, and adjust the penalty if the final number of clusters differs from the requested K and L. Without this, the 'highest ICL across all datasets' claim is not comparable across methods.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1: the global update for γh is written as αh + Σ_{j=1}^N φ^h_{j,·}, but the column index runs to M; the same N/M slip appears in the local-update notation in Algorithm 2. The text defines N cells and M bins, so the column update should use M.
  2. [Section 4 and Figure 3] Section 4 states N = 490 for LGG, but Figure 3A caption says N = 484 after excluding six outlier samples; make the cohort sizes consistent at each stage of the analysis.
  3. [Appendix B.3] Appendix B.3 refers to 'the final model shown in Fig. 3D', but Figure 3 has panels A through C only; the reference should be to Figure 4A or the figure should be re-labelled.
  4. [Appendix B.2] Appendix B.2 contains a typo: 'perfomrance' should be 'performance'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the variational updates follow from the generative model and are checked on held-out entries; the main caveats are a non-load-bearing self-citation and an asymmetric benchmark scoring protocol, neither of which makes the central result circular.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular. Algorithm 1's updates are the closed-form CAVI solutions to the complete conditionals in eq. (2.1), and the held-out log-likelihood is computed from the fitted posterior predictive distribution on entries withheld during training, so the 'prediction' is not a refit of the target. The two-stage residual matrix is definitionally C minus the primary reconstruction, but the claim that residual clusters are prognostic is tested against an external survival endpoint, not against the residual matrix itself. The only reasonably load-bearing citation with author overlap is Funnell et al. (2022), which supplies a real external dataset and a motivating decomposition; it is not a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz, so the self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. The benchmark comparison does have a real limitation: Section 3 and Appendix B.2 state that PoissonSBM and Blockcluster were scored under empirical categorical block distributions rather than their own fitted predictive distributions, with native metrics relegated to Table 3, and the ICL penalty in B.1 is written for a single K,L while PoissonSBM varies row and column cluster counts. This is an asymmetric evaluation protocol that weakens the headline 'improved model fit' claim, but it does not make CN-SBM's derivation equivalent to its inputs; the paper transparently reports the package-native metrics separately. Similarly, the LGG C-index of 0.855 follows outcome-guided model selection in Appendix B.3 with no validation cohort, which is an overfitting and missing-support concern rather than a circularity. Overall, the central inference algorithm is self-contained and its benchmark claims, while qualified, do not reduce to the model's own fitted values by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

CN-SBM is a standard categorical latent block model with Dirichlet priors, so the ledger is short: no invented entities, and the free parameters are the user-chosen cluster counts, the Dirichlet hyperparameters (whose values are not stated), and preprocessing choices such as bin size and the 11+ copy number cap. The main axioms are conditional independence of bins given cluster labels (violated by segmented CNV data), the reliability of upstream copy number calls, and a missingness model for imputation. These assumptions are typical for this model class but should be checked because the benchmark and survival conclusions depend on them.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of row and column clusters (K, L) = K=10, L=30 for CNAsim and TCGA; K=15, L=30 for Funnell datasets
    Set by user based on prior expectations and runtime constraints, not selected by the reported ICL; the choice affects all downstream cluster assignments.
  • Dirichlet prior hyperparameters (alpha, alpha_g, alpha_h) = unspecified
    Values are not given in the paper; posterior concentration and cluster resolution depend on them.
  • Copy number grouping threshold and bin size = Copy numbers capped at 11; 500 kb bins
    Preprocessing choices that determine ncat and resolution; results may change with different bin sizes or caps.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Conditional independence of copy number states across cells and bins given cluster labels
    Used in the joint distribution in Eq. (2.1) and all variational updates; segmented CNV calls violate this because neighboring bins share copy-number states.
  • domain assumption Copy number calls are accurate discretized states from upstream callers (HMMcopy, scAbsolute, ASCAT)
    The model takes an integer CN matrix as input; calling errors propagate directly into the clusters.
  • domain assumption Missing entries are ignorable or handled by empirical-marginal imputation / IPW
    Experiments impute missing entries by sampling from the empirical marginal distribution, which assumes missingness is independent of the missing values.
  • standard math Standard variational inference convergence to a local optimum is acceptable
    CA VI guarantees only local ELBO convergence, and the paper relies on multiple initializations; the central results are not proven to be global optima.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CN-SBM: Categorical Block Modelling For Primary and Residual Copy Number Variation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COC7TKWJ

@misc{pith2026250622963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CN-SBM: Categorical Block Modelling For Primary and Residual Copy Number Variation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COC7TKWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22963}
}
read the original abstract

Cancer is a genetic disorder whose clonal evolution can be monitored by tracking noisy genome-wide copy number variants. We introduce the Copy Number Stochastic Block Model (CN-SBM), a probabilistic framework that jointly clusters samples and genomic regions based on discrete copy number states using a bipartite categorical block model. Unlike models relying on Gaussian or Poisson assumptions, CN-SBM respects the discrete nature of CNV calls and captures subpopulation-specific patterns through block-wise structure. Using a two-stage approach, CN-SBM decomposes CNV data into primary and residual components, enabling detection of both large-scale chromosomal alterations and finer aberrations. We derive a scalable variational inference algorithm for application to large cohorts and high-resolution data. Benchmarks on simulated and real datasets show improved model fit over existing methods. Applied to TCGA low-grade glioma data, CN-SBM reveals clinically relevant subtypes and structured residual variation, aiding patient stratification in survival analysis. These results establish CN-SBM as an interpretable, scalable framework for CNV analysis with direct relevance for tumor heterogeneity and prognosis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22963 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example Separation of Main and Residual Copy Number Variation Across Chromosomal Bins. (A) Raw copy number profiles, visualized per chromosomal bin. (B) Main variation pattern capturing the primary copy number trends across samples. (C) Residual variation highlighting deviations from the main pattern. (D) Residual variation reordered into categories (gains, losses, random, sparse) for clearer interpretation. residua… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the CN-SBM model for primary variation. (A) Graphical model of the CN-SBM. Observed copy number states cij are generated based on latent cell (gi) and bin (hj ) cluster assignments, with cluster pairs governed by a categorical distribution π (gi,hj ) . (B) Outputs of CN-SBM: for each observed value cij , the primary copy number state cˆ (bg) ij is inferred from the most probable cluster pair (ˆgi , hˆ j … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Main and residual variation in TCGA lower-grade glioma (N = 484). (A) CN-SBM fitted to the LGG copy number profiles in 500kb resolution, with samples and bins coloured according to their cluster. (B) Alluvial diagram linking sample cluster assignment in main variation (A) vs. residual variation (C). (C) Residual copy-number landscape after subtraction of main variation obtained from the CN-SBM. Samples have been reo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) Forest plot for Cox proportional hazards model evaluating impact of age groups and main cluster membership on patient survival. Distinct copy-number profiles segregate patients into different survival trajectories (log-rank p < 0.001). (B) Kaplan-Meier survival cur…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Runtimes for the CN-SBM, PoissonSBM, and Blockcluster on the same machine. bvi refers to Algorithm 1 and svi to Algorithm 2. Right: Runtime decomposition of the CN-SBM into spectral bi-clustering initialization, JAX model compilation, and CAVI model fitting. We u…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bar-Hen , A., Barbillon, P., and Donnet, S. (2022). Block models for generalized multipartite networks: Applications in ecology and ethnobiology. Statistical Modelling , 22(4):273--296

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    S., Iovleff, S., and Govaert, G

    Bhatia, P. S., Iovleff, S., and Govaert, G. (2017). Blockcluster: An R Package for Model-Based Co-Clustering . Journal of Statistical Software , 76:1--24

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Biernacki, C., Celeux, G., and Govaert, G. (2000). Assessing a mixture model for clustering with the integrated completed likelihood. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 22(7):719--725

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning . Springer, New York, 1st ed. 2006. corr. 2nd printing 2011 edition edition

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Blei, D. M. and Jordan, M. I. (2006). Variational inference for Dirichlet process mixtures. Bayesian Analysis , 1(1):121--143

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J

    Blei, D. M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J. D. (2017). Variational Inference : A Review for Statisticians . Journal of the American Statistical Association

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    and Vandenberghe, L

    Boyd, S. and Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex Optimization . Cambridge University Press

    2004

  8. [8]

    and Church, G

    Cheng, Y. and Church, G. M. (2000). Biclustering of expression data. Proceedings. International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology , 8:93--103

    work page 2000

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Chiquet, J., Donnet, S., team , g., and Barbillon, P. (2024). Sbm: Stochastic Blockmodels

    2024

  2. [10]

    and Latouche, P

    C \^o me, E. and Latouche, P. (2015). Model selection and clustering in stochastic block models based on the exact integrated complete data likelihood. Statistical Modelling , 15(6):564--589

    2015

  3. [11]

    H., Williams, M

    Funnell, T., O'Flanagan, C. H., Williams, M. J., McPherson, A., McKinney, S., Kabeer, F., Lee, H., Salehi, S., V \'a zquez-Garc \'i a , I., Shi, H., Leventhal, E., Masud, T., Eirew, P., Yap, D., Zhang, A. W., Lim, J. L. P., Wang, B., Brimhall, J., Biele, J., Ting, J., Au, V., ...

    2022

  4. [12]

    and Beal, M

    Ghahramani, Z. and Beal, M. (2000). Propagation Algorithms for Variational Bayesian Learning . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 13. MIT Press

    2000

  5. [13]

    Hochreiter, S., Bodenhofer, U., Heusel, M., Mayr, A., Mitterecker, A., Kasim, A., Khamiakova, T., Van Sanden, S., Lin, D., Talloen, W., Bijnens, L., G \"o hlmann, H. W. H., Shkedy, Z., and Clevert, D.-A. (2010). FABIA : Factor analysis for bicluster acquisition. Bioinformatics...

    2010

  6. [14]

    D., Blei, D

    Hoffman, M. D., Blei, D. M., Wang, C., and Paisley, J. (2013). Stochastic Variational Inference . Journal of Machine Learning Research , 14(4):1303--1347

    2013

  7. [15]

    Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes

    ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes Consortium (2020). Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes. Nature , 578(7793):82--93

    2020

  8. [16]

    Keribin, C., Brault, V., Celeux, G., and Govaert, G. (2015). Estimation and selection for the latent block model on categorical data. Statistics and Computing , 25(6):1201--1216

    2015

  9. [17]

    T., and Gerstein, M

    Kluger, Y., Basri, R., Chang, J. T., and Gerstein, M. (2003). Spectral Biclustering of Microarray Data : Coclustering Genes and Conditions . Genome Research , 13(4):703--716

    2003

  10. [18]

    Lai, D., Ha, G., and Shah, S. (2012). HMMcopy : Copy number prediction with correction for GC and mappability bias for HTS data

    2012

  11. [19]

    R., Taghiyar, M

    Laks, E., McPherson, A., Zahn, H., Lai, D., Steif, A., Brimhall, J., Biele, J., Wang, B., Masud, T., Ting, J., Grewal, D., Nielsen, C., Leung, S., Bojilova, V., Smith, M., Golovko, O., Poon, S., Eirew, P., Kabeer, F., Ruiz de Algara, T., Lee, S. R., Taghiyar, M. J., Huebner, C...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Lloyd, S. (1982). Least squares quantization in PCM . IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 28(2):129--137

    1982

  13. [21]

    C., Haerty, W., Kumar, P., Li, Y

    Macaulay, I. C., Haerty, W., Kumar, P., Li, Y. I., Hu, T. X., Teng, M. J., Goolam, M., Saurat, N., Coupland, P., Shirley, L. M., Smith, M., Van der Aa , N., Banerjee, R., Ellis, P. D., Quail, M. A., Swerdlow, H. P., Zernicka-Goetz , M., Livesey, F. J., Ponting, C. P., and Voet...

    2015

  14. [22]

    MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability , Volume 1: Statistics , volume 5.1, pages 281--298. University of California Press

    1967

  15. [23]

    Morelli, L., Giansanti, V., and Cittaro, D. (2021). Nested Stochastic Block Models applied to the analysis of single cell data. BMC Bioinformatics , 22(1):576

    2021

  16. [24]

    A., Zaccaria, S., and Raphael, B

    Myers, M. A., Zaccaria, S., and Raphael, B. J. (2020). Identifying tumor clones in sparse single-cell mutation data. Bioinformatics , 36(Supplement\_1):i186--i193

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ng, A., Jordan, M., and Weiss, Y. (2001). On Spectral Clustering : Analysis and an algorithm. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 14. MIT Press

    2001

  18. [26]

    A., Nielsen, C

    Roth, A., McPherson, A., Laks, E., Biele, J., Yap, D., Wan, A., Smith, M. A., Nielsen, C. B., McAlpine, J. N., Aparicio, S., Bouchard-C \^o t \'e , A., and Shah, S. P. (2016). Clonal genotype and population structure inference from single-cell tumor sequencing. Nature Methods ...

    2016

  19. [27]

    P., Cullen, A

    Schneider, M. P., Cullen, A. E., Pangonyte, J., Skelton, J., Major, H., Van Oudenhove, E., Garcia, M. J., Chaves Urbano, B., Piskorz, A. M., Brenton, J. D., Macintyre, G., and Markowetz, F. (2024). scAbsolute : Measuring single-cell ploidy and replication status. Genome Biolog...

    2024

  20. [28]

    P., Xuan, X., DeLeeuw, R

    Shah, S. P., Xuan, X., DeLeeuw, R. J., Khojasteh, M., Lam, W. L., Ng, R., and Murphy, K. P. (2006). Integrating copy number polymorphisms into array CGH analysis using a robust HMM . Bioinformatics , 22(14):e431--e439

    2006

  21. [29]

    H., Lingj rde, O

    Van Loo, P., Nordgard, S. H., Lingj rde, O. C., Russnes, H. G., Rye, I. H., Sun, W., Weigman, V. J., Marynen, P., Zetterberg, A., Naume, B., Perou, C. M., B rresen-Dale , A.-L., and Kristensen, V. N. (2010). Allele-specific copy number analysis of tumors. Proceedings of the Na...

    2010

  22. [30]

    and Bansal, M

    Weiner, S. and Bansal, M. S. (2023). CNAsim : Improved simulation of single-cell copy number profiles and DNA-seq data from tumors. Bioinformatics , 39(7)

    2023

  23. [31]

    N., Collisson, E

    Weinstein, J. N., Collisson, E. A., Mills, G. B., Shaw, K. R. M., Ozenberger, B. A., Ellrott, K., Shmulevich, I., Sander, C., and Stuart, J. M. (2013). The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nature Genetics , 45(10):1113--1120

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.