MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2741691866 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2017-5553

Abstract 5553: A computational model for integrating genomic data with public datasets for molecular tumor board recommendations

2017· article· en· W2741691866 on OpenAlexaff
R Joseph Bender, Edik M. Blais, Apoorva Kulkarni, Michael J. Pishvaian, David Halverson, Jonathan R. Brody, Emanuel F. Petricoin, Subha Madhavan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKRASCancer researchProtein kinase BMAPK/ERK pathwayComputational biologyBiologyPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayMEK inhibitorMutationBioinformaticsSignal transductionGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent genomic profiling studies in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA) have revealed actionable mutations affecting multiple signaling pathways, but in spite of these mutations, targeted inhibitors of these pathways have low success rates. A possible reason for these failures is that single-gene biomarkers (e.g. a KRAS mutation as an indicator of MEK inhibitor sensitivity) fail to account for crosstalk within and between dysregulated pathways. We have previously curated a knowledgebase of published studies as evidence to support molecular tumor board recommendations to cancer patients after multi-omic profiling. Here we present a computational framework for integrating this knowledgebase with drug response data from cancer cell lines to propose “actionable” biomarkers based on a panel of pathways instead of targeting a single gene mutation. We constructed a computational model encompassing a broad range of cancer-related pathways, including RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK, PI3K/AKT, cell cycle regulation, and DNA repair. The model consisted of a set of ordinary differential equations (ODE) with protein interactions following Hill-type kinetics and the rate of cell division and apoptosis modeled dependent on key signaling nodes, including the level of phosphorylated ERK and AKT. We integrated two sources of publicly available data: 1) published studies correlating phosphoprotein measurements and resistance pathways to targeted inhibitors in clinical development; and 2) mutation data correlated with drug-specific response metrics (e.g. IC50 values), such as CCLE and NCI-60. We systematically screened frequently observed overlapping disrupted signaling pathways (i.e., combinations of mutations) by simulating predicted IC50 values for targeted inhibitors. Based on these simulations, we then simulated the effect of pairs of drugs to explore which drug combinations may be best suited for inhibiting tumor growth when tumors harbor multiple mutations. We present two applications of this computational approach: a comparison of CDK4/6 inhibition in CDKN2A-mutated PDA vs. hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and a comparison of PARP inhibition in BRCA1/2-mutated PDA and ovarian cancer. The predictions generated by our simulations were consistent with clinical observations in that fewer combinations of mutations in PDA were sensitive to these inhibitors than in breast and ovarian cancer, suggesting ways to refine biomarkers for sensitivity to these drugs in PDA. The computational approach presented here takes into account multiple datasets from a knowledgebase to provide a prioritized list of treatments that match a patient’s molecular profile while also providing the rationale for the recommendation. This represents a step toward incorporation of systems biology in precision oncology. Citation Format: R Joseph Bender, Edik Blais, Apoorva Kulkarni, Michael J. Pishvaian, David Halverson, Jonathan R. Brody, Emanuel Petricoin, Subha Madhavan. A computational model for integrating genomic data with public datasets for molecular tumor board recommendations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 5553. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-5553

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→