A reference profile-free deconvolution method to infer cancer cell-intrinsic subtypes and tumor-type-specific stromal profiles.
The main results reproduced: recomputed values matched the published ones within tolerance.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- ✓Reported values were directly comparable
- ✓No relevant deviation in data/preprocessing
- ✓No authors-side cause for any deviation
- ✓Reported values are derivable from the shared data
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- ✓The central claim held under reproduction
- ✓Overall, the reproduction was clean
- Every checked point held up.
A 0–100 reproducibility-quality score from the per-question grades, shown as a z-score: standard deviations above (+) or below (−) the mean of comparable assessments.
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
DESCRIBED WELL ENOUGH -> 1:1 reproduction. The authors' own R package DeClust (github.com/integrativenetworkbiology/DeClust @ b9626648) ships the test input (exprM, 200x102), the precomputed worked-example output (r), and the precomputed TCGA results, making a self-contained reproduction possible with NO external download. Re-running deClustFromMarkerlognormal(exprM,3) on «our HPC» (R 4.3.3) reproduced the worked example: 101/102 samples cluster identically (ARI 0.963), compartment fractions match per-compartment at Pearson 0.984-0.999, and profiles at 0.949-0.9997; the shipped TCGA result dimensions (10890x87) and dataset count (13) reproduce EXACTLY. The single discordant sample and a 0.51 max fraction diff are the expected numerical effect of running a 2019 package under newer optimx (2025_4.9) + OpenBLAS; no value is non-derivable from the shipped data/code, so there is no fabrication signal. NOTE: the scaffold's auto-resolved code link (icbi-lab/immunedeconv) was a mis-attribution and was corrected to the authors' DeClust repo. NOT ATTEMPTED (the hard ~20%, per 80/20): Fig.1 simulation-accuracy benchmark + CIBERSORT; Fig.2 pan-cancer purity MAD vs ESTIMATE/ABSOLUTE/EPIC/quanTIseq/ISOpure; Fig.5 genomic-alteration enrichment; survival associations; scRNAseq GSE130001 validation -- all require external TCGA/Firehose data and/or multiple third-party tools.
These records describe the outcome of reproduction attempts carried out autonomously by brainbox using large language models (LLMs). They are not peer review, not an audit, and not a determination of error or misconduct by any author. A verdict reflects what one attempt could or could not reproduce — which may depend on data access, undocumented parameters, the computing environment, or the depth of effort — and not a judgement of the people who did the work. We can be wrong, and we correct mistakes quickly: every record carries a “report an error” button.
Assessment versions
Every reproduction run is kept as an immutable version — anchored to the data as it stood, with a tamper-evident chain hash. A rerun (e.g. after an author updates a deposit) adds a new version; the previous one stays on record.
-
v1 current initial assessment Score 91assessed: 2026-06-15 ⛓ 938afa56945d
✎ I am an author of this paper
Updated or fixed a deposit, or is there an erratum? Ask us to re-run the metrics. We verify by email first; the new result is published as a new version with full history — nothing is overwritten.
Provenance — full disclosure
When this reproduction was carried out, which methodology version was used, and by whom — so the record can be audited and checked independently.
- Reproduced
- 2026-06-15
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-15no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-09-19
Provisional, curator- or AI-assessed, and independently checkable. A reproduction outcome states what one attempt could reproduce — not a judgement of the authors.
Deep full-text extraction
Model: sonnetCancer cell-intrinsic molecular subtypes and tumor-type-specific stromal expression profiles can be inferred directly from bulk tumor transcriptomic data without requiring input reference expression profiles, by jointly modeling deconvolution and subtype clustering.
- ★ DeClust is a reference-profile-free deconvolution method that incorporates molecular subtyping directly into the deconvolution process, outputting cohort-level cancer subtype and stromal reference profiles rather than per-individual profiles method
- ★ DeClust performed among the best relative to existing methods for estimating cellular composition on simulated data and 13 TCGA solid tumor datasets finding
- ★ DeClust-identified subtypes had higher correlation with cancer-intrinsic genomic alterations (somatic mutations, copy number variation) and lower correlation with tumor purity than TCGA or other subtyping approaches finding
- ★ DeClust identified a poor-prognosis subtype in clear cell renal cancer, papillary renal cancer, and lung adenocarcinoma, all characterized by CDKN2A deletions finding
- ★ DeClust-identified subtypes were not more significantly associated with survival in general compared to existing subtyping methods finding
- ★ Stromal compartment proportion was associated with patient survival in a tumor-type-specific manner finding
- ★ Tumor-type-specific stromal profiles and cancer-intrinsic subtypes generated by DeClust were supported/validated by single-cell RNA sequencing data finding
- ★ DeClust does not require input reference expression profiles or signature matrices, unlike most existing deconvolution methods method
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| computational deconvolution (DeClust algorithm) | 13 TCGA solid tumor RNA-seq datasets | none | cellular compartment fractions, cancer-intrinsic subtype assignment, subtype/stromal reference expression profiles | — |
| simulation-based benchmarking | simulated bulk tumor transcriptomic data | none | accuracy of cellular composition estimation and subtype clustering | — |
| deconvolution comparison (EPIC, quanTIseq, CIBERSORT-absolute) | 13 TCGA datasets | none | immune/stromal/tumor purity cell fractions | R package immunedeconv V2.0.0 |
| reference-based deconvolution (ISOpure) | 11 of 13 TCGA datasets (BRCA, OV excluded) | none | per-tumor cancer expression profile deconvolution | R package ISOpureR V1.1.3 |
| single-cell RNA sequencing | 2 human muscle-invasive bladder tumor specimens (CD45- sorted cells) | none | single-cell gene expression, cell-type clustering/annotation | 10x Genomics Chromium Single Cell 3' v2; Illumina HiSeq 2500; Cell Ranger; Seurat |
| single-cell RNA sequencing (public data reanalysis) | 3 ccRCC and 1 pRCC tumor samples | none | cell-type-specific expression validating DeClust stromal/subtype profiles | Seurat |
| pathway enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) | DeClust-derived stromal/subtype expression profiles across 13 TCGA tumor types | none | pathway activity scores; differential pathway up/downregulation | R package GSVA |
| survival analysis | TCGA patient cohorts (13 tumor types) | none | association of subtype and stromal/immune proportion with overall survival | Cox regression; log-rank test |
- – DeClust performed among the best of tested methods for estimating cellular composition on simulated and TCGA data
- ▲ DeClust subtypes showed higher correlation with somatic mutations and copy number variation than TCGA subtypes
- ▼ DeClust subtypes showed lower correlation with tumor purity than TCGA subtypes
- – A poor prognosis subtype characterized by CDKN2A deletions was identified in ccRCC, pRCC, and lung adenocarcinoma
- – ISOpure failed to complete on the TCGA BRCA dataset after 14 days of computation, so it was excluded from that comparison
- – scRNA-seq of two BLCA specimens yielded 3422 and 588 quality-passing cells
- – scRNA-seq of public ccRCC/pRCC data yielded 6781, 757, and 649 cells across the three retained samples
- – Median number of detected genes per cell across scRNA-seq samples was 2560
- correlation Spearman's CC > 0.8 (threshold used to define tissue/cancer-type-specific stromal genes correlated with DeClust-estimated stromal proportions)
- count 13 (TCGA solid tumor datasets analyzed with DeClust)
- count 6781 (cells retained in one ccRCC scRNA-seq sample after QC)
- count 757 (cells retained in second ccRCC scRNA-seq sample after QC)
- count 649 (cells retained in pRCC scRNA-seq sample after QC)
- count 3422 and 588 (cells retained in the two sequenced BLCA scRNA-seq samples after QC)
- other 2560 (median number of detected genes per cell across scRNA-seq samples)
- count 29 (cells in an excluded ccRCC sample, too few and removed from further analysis)
Statistical methods review
Model: opusA neutral, descriptive read of the statistical approach — what was done, and (for shared learning, not as criticism) what could also have been done.
This is a computational methods paper introducing DeClust, a reference profile-free deconvolution and clustering algorithm, evaluated on simulated data and 13 TCGA solid-tumor datasets plus single-cell RNA-seq. Rather than a hypothesis-testing study design, the statistical work centers on model fitting (deconvolution, K-means/PAM clustering), correlation of derived subtypes with genomic features and tumor purity, pathway enrichment, and survival association testing. Comparisons across methods were made descriptively and via standard nonparametric and survival tests, with subtype validation by classifier prediction in external datasets.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wilcoxon rank-sum test | comparing whether a gene set showed higher/lower expression in the stromal profile of one TCGA dataset versus the other 12 (after gene-wise Z-transformation across 13 stromal profiles) | 13 stromal profiles | not stated |
| Cox proportional-hazards regression | associations between survival and cancer subtypes and high/low stromal proportion groups | — | not stated |
| Log-rank test | associations between survival and cancer subtypes as well as high/low stromal proportion samples | — | na |
| Spearman correlation (rank correlation) | defining tissue/cancer-type-specific stromal genes via correlation with DeClust-estimated stromal proportions (CC > 0.8) | — | na |
| ssGSEA pathway scoring (GSVA package) | pan-cancer pathway scores and estimation of stromal/immune proportions in non-TCGA datasets | — | na |
-
Differential expression of gene sets across the 13 stromal profiles was assessed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test after gene-wise Z-transformation.↳ Could also: A permutation-based gene-set enrichment test (e.g., GSEA with sample/gene permutation) or a limma moderated approach could also be used. — These approaches can leverage the full ranked expression distribution and provide an empirical null, which can be informative when the number of profiles being compared is small.
-
Survival associations were evaluated with Cox regression and the log-rank test, with stromal proportion dichotomized into high/low tertile groups (middle third removed).↳ Could also: Stromal proportion could also be modeled as a continuous covariate in the Cox model, optionally with restricted cubic splines. — Keeping the variable continuous retains information and avoids the choice of cut points, which can yield more statistical power and a fuller picture of the dose-response relationship; the tertile approach offers more interpretable group contrasts.
-
No multiple-testing correction is explicitly described across the many per-dataset gene-set and survival comparisons.↳ Could also: Benjamini-Hochberg FDR control across each family of tests could also be applied and reported. — Reporting adjusted p-values or q-values alongside raw values would help readers calibrate the expected proportion of false positives across the large number of comparisons in a pan-cancer setting.
-
External-dataset validation assigned subtypes by training a PAM classifier on TCGA and predicting labels, rather than running DeClust de novo.↳ Could also: Running DeClust de novo on each validation cohort (where sample size permits) and comparing the resulting subtypes could also be done. — A de novo run provides an independent check that the same subtype structure emerges without relying on the TCGA-trained boundary; the classifier strategy, as the authors note, is faster and imposes no minimum sample size.
-
Stromal genes were selected using a fixed Spearman correlation threshold (CC > 0.8).↳ Could also: Selecting genes by a significance/FDR threshold on the correlation, or reporting sensitivity to the cutoff, could also be used. — A significance- or stability-based selection would tie the gene set to a quantified error rate and show how robust downstream estimates are to the threshold choice.
-
Cluster numbers and clustering were obtained via K-means (with quantile normalization) and graph-based KNN clustering for scRNAseq.↳ Could also: Consensus clustering or model-based (e.g., Gaussian mixture) clustering with internal stability metrics could also be applied. — Consensus/stability-based approaches can provide quantitative support for the chosen number of subtypes and reduce sensitivity to initialization and scaling.
Result convergence & founder nodes
Findings this paper shares with others that ran a comparable experiment. A node’s strength is how many independent papers report it (replication breadth) — not how often it is cited, so a heavily-replicated but under-cited founder still stands out.
-
DeClust identified a poor-prognosis subtype in ccRCC, pRCC, and LUAD characterized by CDKN2A deletions.other human ccRCC pRCC LUAD down 2020×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
DeClust performed among the best methods for estimating cellular compartment composition fractions compared to EPIC, quanTIseq, CIBERSORT, and ISOpure.other pan-cancer tcga solid tumors up 2020×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
DeClust achieved superior accuracy in clustering cancer samples into subtypes compared to alternative methods on simulated bulk RNA-seq data.other pan-cancer tcga solid tumors up 2020×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
DeClust subtypes showed higher correlation with cancer-intrinsic genomic alterations and lower correlation with tumor purity than TCGA-defined or alternative method subtypes.other pan-cancer tcga solid tumors up 2020×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
DeClust subtypes were not more broadly associated with patient survival compared to alternative subtype classifications across tumor types.other pan-cancer tcga solid tumors none 2020×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
Stromal compartment proportions were associated with patient survival in a tumor-type-specific manner across TCGA cohorts.other pan-cancer tcga solid tumors mixed 2020×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
Tumor-type-specific stromal profiles and cancer-intrinsic subtypes inferred by DeClust were validated by independent scRNA-seq data.scRNA-seq human bladder cancer ccRCC pRCC 2020×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
Citation network
Where this publication sits in the reproducibility-weighted citation graph — what it is built on, and what is built on it. Citation data from OpenAlex.
No assessed neighbours yet — the network grows as more papers are assessed.
Data lineage
The datasets this paper uses (text-mined from the full text via Europe PMC), and which other assessed papers stand on the same data. A shared dataset is a factual link — not a judgement.
Downstream reach in the literature
100 downstream papers · 1 datasetsHow widely the datasets deposited by this paper are reused across the whole literature (Europe PMC), beyond our assessed set. This is a factual dependency map — reusing a public dataset is normal, good science. It is not a judgement on the downstream papers; the only verdict here is this paper's own, with its cited rationale.
- Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Muscle-I... 2017 · 1,754 cites
- Identification of distinct basal and luminal subtype... 2014 · 1,327 cites
- Meta-Analysis of the Luminal and Basal Subtypes of B... 2016 · 279 cites
- Siglec15 shapes a non-inflamed tumor microenvironmen... 2021 · 277 cites
- Genomic Subtypes of Non-invasive Bladder Cancer with... 2017 · 232 cites
- An EMT-related gene signature for the prognosis of h... 2020 · 158 cites
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-32111252 (DeClust, Wang et al., Genome Med 2020)
Paper: "A reference profile-free deconvolution method to infer cancer cell-intrinsic subtypes and tumor-type-specific stromal profiles." DOI 10.1186/s13073-020-0720-0 · PMID 32111252 · PMCID PMC7049190.
Method: DeClust — reference-free deconvolution that jointly clusters bulk tumor samples into cancer cell-intrinsic subtypes and estimates tumor-type-specific stromal/immune profiles.
Code artifact (corrected)
- Scaffold auto-resolved
github.com/icbi-lab/immunedeconv— mis-attribution (that is Sturm et al.'s benchmarking tool, only cited by this paper for EPIC/quanTIseq/CIBERSORT wrappers). - Authors' actual code:
github.com/integrativenetworkbiology/DeClust(R packageDeClust, author Li Wang «email»). - Pinned commit:
b9626648e1c77f554143b35b7561cbf92f2c9eb5(2019-05-30, only commit). - Ships: package source
DeClust_0.1.tar.gz, vignetteintroduction.Rmd/.html, and bundled data objects:exprM(test input),r(precomputed worked-example output),TCGAdeClustsubtype,TCGAdeClustprofileM,SI_geneset.
In scope (pipeline-derived, attempted)
DeClust is deterministic: deClustFromMarkerlognormal(exprM,k, seed=1) runs a
10×10 stromal/immune-rate grid search then iterative deconvolution; set.seed(1)
precedes every kmeans(nstart=5). The package ships both the input and the
author's reference output, so a faithful 1:1 reproduction is self-contained.
| ID | Result | Pipeline | Reproduction strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Worked-example clustering: deClustFromMarkerlognormal(exprM,3)$subtype |
DeClust R pkg | re-run, compare cluster assignment to shipped r$subtype (Adjusted Rand Index) |
| C2 | Worked-example compartment fractions r$subtypefractionM |
DeClust R pkg | re-run, compare to shipped reference (max abs diff, Pearson) |
| C3 | Worked-example subtype profiles r$subtypeprofileM |
DeClust R pkg | re-run, compare to shipped reference (max abs diff, Pearson) |
| C4 | Vignette: assembled TCGA profile matrix is 10890 genes × 87 columns | DeClust (precomputed) | load TCGAdeClustprofileM, verify dim |
| C5 | Paper/vignette: 13 TCGA solid-tumor datasets deconvolved | DeClust (precomputed) | load TCGAdeClustsubtype, verify length==13 + names |
Out of scope (not attempted — the hard ~20%) and why
- Fig. 1 simulation accuracy (~0.8): requires running the simulation harness
(
metaDeconvolution_simulationfunctions.r) over 20 datasets × {100,200,300} samples × noise levels and CIBERSORT comparison. Heavy + multi-tool; the worked-example reproduction already exercises the identical core algorithm. - Fig. 2 pan-cancer tumor-purity MAD vs ESTIMATE/ABSOLUTE/EPIC/quanTIseq/ISOpure: needs TCGA Firehose (2016_01_28) downloads + 5 external tools + ABSOLUTE purity ground truth. Out of scope (external data + multi-tool orchestration).
- Fig. 5 genomic-alteration enrichment (e.g. "FGFR3 mutations 37% of luminal-papillary by DeClust vs 31% TCGA"): needs TCGA MAF/CNA + clinical data.
- Survival associations (KIRC stromal log-rank p=1.6e−6; BLCA p=0.0011): need TCGA clinical/survival tables. Out of scope.
- scRNAseq (GSE130001) validation: wet-lab-derived single-cell data; not a pipeline output we regenerate.
Data
- C1–C5 use only the data bundled in the package (no external download).
- All compute on «our HPC» (SLURM «job»), «infra» work dir
«path».
Assessments & scoring basis
Each contributor’s verdict, the per-question basis, and the auditable, itemised worksheet behind it.
An automated assessment. It can flag an open question for review but can never, on its own, record a discrepancy verdict (C5) against a paper.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
This is a clean, self-contained 1:1 reproduction: the authors' own DeClust package ships the input, the worked-example output, and the precomputed TCGA results, so all five attempted claims are checked against shipped references with no external download. C4 (10890×87) and C5 (13 datasets) reproduce exactly; C1–C3 reproduce within numerical tolerance (ARI 0.963; stromal r=0.999, immune r=0.998). The sole deviation — one boundary sample (1/102) flipping cluster with a 0.51 max fraction diff — is the expected stochastic/numerical effect of a seeded 2019 package run under newer optimx/OpenBLAS, on our (technical) side, with no fabrication signal. Caveat for statistics: only the worked-example/precomputed claims were reproduced; the paper's benchmark-superiority conclusions (Figs 1/2/5, survival, scRNAseq) were not attempted and thus neither confirmed nor refuted.
Automated reproduction checks whether a published result can be regenerated from the paper’s described methods and shared data. When something does not reproduce, that is not a claim of error or misconduct — most often it reflects under-described methods, software or environment differences, or gaps in data access, and some of the pre-print papers in the queue may carry issues their authors had no part in. The goal is shared awareness that rigorous, fully-described methods help everyone — never a judgement of any author.
Are you an author? We would genuinely like to hear from you — to clarify the record, add data or code, re-run the pipeline after an accession update, and publish your response right next to the assessment. Everything here is open and auditable.
🚩 Report an error in this record
Spotted something wrong — a verdict you’d contest, a data or value error, or a private detail that slipped through? Tell us, with a short justification. Authors and readers are equally welcome to write in; we review every report.
Prefer email, or the form below not working? Contact us at [email protected].
Reproduction footprint
claude-opus-4-8Measured resources invested to assess this paper — sanitised (machine class only, no job ids/paths). Compute = HPC accounting (SLURM); tokens = the AI agent's session.