Predicting High-Impact Pharmacological Targets by Integrating Transcriptome and Text-Mining Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Novel, "outside of the box" approaches are needed for evaluating candidate molecules, especially in oncology. Throughout the years of 2000-2010, the efficiency of drug development fell to barely acceptable levels, and in the second decade of this century, levels have improved only marginally. This dismal condition continues despite unprecedented progress in the development of a variety of high-throughput tools, computational methods, aggregated databases, drug repurposing programs and innovative chemistries. Here we tested a hypothesis that the economic impact of targeting a particular gene product is predictable a priori by employing a combination of transcriptome profiles and quantitative metrics reflecting existing literature. METHODS: To extract classification features, the gene expression patterns of a posteriori high-impact and low-impact anti-cancer target sets were compared. To minimize the possible bias of text-mining, the number of manuscripts published prior to the first clinical trial or relevant review paper, as well as its first derivative in this interval, were collected and used as quantitative metrics of public interest. RESULTS: By combining the gene expression and literature mining features, a 4-fold enrichment in high-impact targets was produced, resulting in a favourable ROC curve analysis for the top impact targets. The dataset was enriched by the highest impact anti-cancer targets, while demonstrating drastic differences in economic value between high and low-impact targets. Known anti-cancer products of EGFR, ERBB2, CYP19A1/aromatase, MTOR, PTGS2, tubulin, VEGFA, BRAF, PGR, PDGFRA, SRC, REN, CSF1R, CTLA4 and HSP90AA1 genes received the highest scores for predicted impact, while microsomal steroid sulfatase, anticoagulant protein C, p53, CDKN2A, c-Jun, and TNSFS11 were highlighted as most promising research-stage targets. CONCLUSIONS: A significant cost reduction may be achieved by a priori impact assessment of targets and ligands before their development or repurposing. Expanding a suite of combinational treatments could also decrease the costs, while achieving a higher impact per developed ligand. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".