An Unbiased Oncology Compound Screen to Identify Novel Combination Strategies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combination drug therapy is a widely used paradigm for managing numerous human malignancies. In cancer treatment, additive and/or synergistic drug combinations can convert weakly efficacious monotherapies into regimens that produce robust antitumor activity. This can be explained in part through pathway interdependencies that are critical for cancer cell proliferation and survival. However, identification of the various interdependencies is difficult due to the complex molecular circuitry that underlies tumor development and progression. Here, we present a high-throughput platform that allows for an unbiased identification of synergistic and efficacious drug combinations. In a screen of 22,737 experiments of 583 doublet combinations in 39 diverse cancer cell lines using a 4 by 4 dosing regimen, both well-known and novel synergistic and efficacious combinations were identified. Here, we present an example of one such novel combination, a Wee1 inhibitor (AZD1775) and an mTOR inhibitor (ridaforolimus), and demonstrate that the combination potently and synergistically inhibits cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo This approach has identified novel combinations that would be difficult to reliably predict based purely on our current understanding of cancer cell biology. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(6); 1155-62. ©2016 AACR.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it