Back

Audited vibe coding suggests partial fetal-like convergence of tumor proteomes

Meyer, J. G.

2026-08-31 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.08.26.745609 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The balance between how much human tumors recapitulate fetal tissue programs versus lose adult tissue identity remains unresolved. I used audited vibe coding, a human-mediated, cross-model critique-and-refinement workflow, to re-analyze a public pan-cancer proteomic atlas. A primary large language model wrote and executed the analysis under scientific direction, while a separate model family audited the code, outputs and claims; findings were returned for correction across seven versioned releases. Among 229 tumor-adjacent pairs in seven organs, tumor-minus-adjacent proteomic change partially aligned with reverse fetal-to-adult maturation (organ-balanced cosine, 0.240; 95% interval, 0.138 to 0.335), with positive alignment in 189 of 229 patients (82.5%). The organ-balanced projection coefficient was 0.195 (95% interval, 0.069 to 0.244), indicating movement along only part of the developmental distance. Although reverse maturation overlapped adult-identity loss, a positive developmental component remained after identity loss entered first (0.203; 95% interval, 0.129 to 0.239). Suppression of adult-high proteins contributed to more positive alignment than reactivation of fetal-high proteins. The vibe coding audits identified substantive defects. A common-mask correction reduced the matched-organ advantage from 0.074 to 0.059; a missing-value correction barely changed aggregate geometry but replaced 5 of the top 40 liver contributors; and coupled resampling repaired uncertainty accounting without changing patient scores. As with any single report, the "vibe reanalysis" biological results are candidate discoveries pending independent replication. The workflow is a single feasibility case, not a reliability benchmark, and shows how conversationally generated analysis can be made more inspectable when model-written code is treated as untrusted, versioned and subject to separate-model critique and executable checks.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.