Tissue specificity of <i>in vitro</i> drug sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Research in oncology traditionally focuses on specific tissue type from which the cancer develops. However, advances in high-throughput molecular profiling technologies have enabled the comprehensive characterization of molecular aberrations in multiple cancer types. It was hoped that these large-scale datasets would provide the foundation for a paradigm shift in oncology which would see tumors being classified by their molecular profiles rather than tissue types, but tumors with similar genomic aberrations may respond differently to targeted therapies depending on their tissue of origin. There is therefore a need to reassess the potential association between pharmacological response and tissue of origin for therapeutic drugs, and to test how these associations translate from preclinical to clinical settings. In this paper, we investigate the tissue specificity of drug sensitivities in large-scale pharmacological studies and compare these associations to those found in clinical trial descriptions. Our meta-analysis of the four largest in vitro drug screening datasets indicates that tissue of origin is strongly associated with drug response. We identify novel tissue-drug associations, which may present exciting new avenues for drug repurposing. One caveat is that the vast majority of the significant associations found in preclinical settings do not concur with clinical observations. Accordingly, our results call for more testing to find the root cause of the discrepancies between preclinical and clinical observations.
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 | 0.034 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".