JFCR39, a panel of 39 human cancer cell lines, and its application in the discovery and development of anticancer drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, panels of human cancer cell lines have made a significant contribution to the discovery and development of anticancer drugs. The National Cancer Institute 60 (NCI60), which consists of 60 cell lines from various human cancer types, remains the most powerful human cancer cell line panel for high throughput screening of anticancer drugs. The development of JFCR39, comprising a panel of 39 human cancer cell lines coupled with a drug-activity database, was based on NCI60. Like NCI60, JFCR39 not only provides disease-oriented information but can also predict the action mechanism or molecular target of a given antitumor agent by utilizing the COMPARE algorithm. The molecular targets of ZSTK474 as well as several other antitumor agents have been identified by using JFCR39 and some of these compounds have since entered clinical trials. In this review, we will describe human cancer cell line panels particularly JFCR39 and its application in the discovery and/or development of anticancer drug candidates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".