Prediction of cancer drug sensitivity using high-dimensional omic features
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
A large number of cancer drugs have been developed to target particular genes/pathways that are crucial for cancer growth. Drugs that share a molecular target may also have some common predictive omic features, e.g., somatic mutations or gene expression. Therefore, it is desirable to analyze these drugs as a group to identify the associated omic features, which may provide biological insights into the underlying drug response. Furthermore, these omic features may be robust predictors for any drug sharing the same target. The high dimensionality and the strong correlations among the omic features are the main challenges of this task. Motivated by this problem, we develop a new method for high-dimensional bilevel feature selection using a group of response variables that may share a common set of predictors in addition to their individual predictors. Simulation results show that our method has a substantially higher sensitivity and specificity than existing methods. We apply our method to two large-scale drug sensitivity studies in cancer cell lines. Both within-study and between-study validation demonstrate the good efficacy of our method.
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