The Current Landscape of 3D In Vitro Tumor Models: What Cancer Hallmarks Are Accessible for Drug Discovery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer prognosis remains a lottery dependent on cancer type, disease stage at diagnosis, and personal genetics. While investment in research is at an all-time high, new drugs are more likely to fail in clinical trials today than in the 1970s. In this review, a summary of current survival statistics in North America is provided, followed by an overview of the modern drug discovery process, classes of models used throughout different stages, and challenges associated with drug development efficiency are highlighted. Then, an overview of the cancer hallmarks that drive clinical progression is provided, and the range of available clinical therapies within the context of these hallmarks is categorized. Specifically, it is found that historically, the development of therapies is limited to a subset of possible targets. This provides evidence for the opportunities offered by novel disease-relevant in vitro models that enable identification of novel targets that facilitate interactions between the tumor cells and their surrounding microenvironment. Next, an overview of the models currently reported in literature is provided, and the cancer biology they have been used to explore is highlighted. Finally, four priority areas are suggested for the field to accelerate adoption of in vitro tumour models for cancer drug discovery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".