Exploiting Synthetic Lethality and Network Biology to Overcome EGFR Inhibitor Resistance in Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recent approval of third-generation therapies, overcoming resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors remains a major challenge in non-small cell lung cancer. Conceptually, synthetic lethality holds the promise of identifying non-intuitive targets for tackling both acquired and intrinsic resistance in this setting. However, translating these laboratory findings into effective clinical strategies continues to be elusive. Here, we provide an overview of the synthetic lethal approaches that have been employed to study EGFR inhibitor resistance and review the oncogene and non-oncogene signalling mechanisms that have thus far been unveiled by synthetic lethality screens. We highlight the potential challenges associated with progressing these discoveries into the clinic including context dependency, signalling plasticity, and tumour heterogeneity, and we offer a perspective on emerging network biology and computational solutions to exploit these phenomena for cancer therapy and biomarker discovery. We conclude by presenting a number of tangible steps to bolster our understanding of fundamental synthetic lethality mechanisms and advance these findings beyond the confines of the laboratory.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".