Preclinical optimization of a broad-spectrum anti-bladder cancer tri-drug regimen via the Feedback System Control (FSC) platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic outcomes of combination chemotherapy have not significantly advanced during the past decades. This has been attributed to the formidable challenges of optimizing drug combinations. Testing a matrix of all possible combinations of doses and agents in a single cell line is unfeasible due to the virtually infinite number of possibilities. We utilized the Feedback System Control (FSC) platform, a phenotype oriented approach to test 100 options among 15,625 possible combinations in four rounds of assaying to identify an optimal tri-drug combination in eight distinct chemoresistant bladder cancer cell lines. This combination killed between 82.86% and 99.52% of BCa cells, but only 47.47% of the immortalized benign bladder epithelial cells. Preclinical in vivo verification revealed its markedly enhanced anti-tumor efficacy as compared to its bi- or mono-drug components in cell line-derived tumor xenografts. The collective response of these pathways to component drugs was both cell type- and drug type specific. However, the entire spectrum of pathways triggered by the tri-drug regimen was similar in all four cancer cell lines, explaining its broad spectrum killing of BCa lines, which did not occur with its component drugs. Our findings here suggest that the FSC platform holds promise for optimization of anti-cancer combination chemotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".