Enhancing Reproducibility in Cancer Drug Screening: How Do We Move Forward?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale pharmacogenomic high-throughput screening (HTS) studies hold great potential for generating robust genomic predictors of drug response. Two recent large-scale HTS studies have reported results of such screens, revealing several known and novel drug sensitivities and biomarkers. Subsequent evaluation, however, found only moderate interlaboratory concordance in the drug response phenotypes, possibly due to differences in the experimental protocols used in the two studies. This highlights the need for community-wide implementation of standardized assays for measuring drug response phenotypes so that the full potential of HTS is realized. We suggest that the path forward is to establish best practices and standardization of the critical steps in these assays through a collective effort to ensure that the data produced from large-scale screens would not only be of high intrastudy consistency, so that they could be replicated and compared successfully across multiple laboratories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".