PharmacoDB: an integrative database for mining <i>in vitro</i> drug screening studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent pharmacogenomic studies profiled large panels of cancer cell lines against hundreds of approved drugs and experimental chemical compounds. The overarching goal of these screens is to measure sensitivity of cell lines to chemical perturbation, correlate these measures to genomic features, and thereby develop novel predictors of drug response. However, leveraging this valuable data is challenging due to the lack of standards for annotating cell lines and chemical compounds, and quantifying drug response. Moreover, it has been recently shown that the complexity and complementarity of the experimental protocols used in the field result in high levels of technical and biological variation in the in vitro pharmacological profiles. There is therefore a need for new tools to facilitate rigorous comparison and integrative analysis of large-scale drug screening datasets. To address this issue, we have developed PharmacoDB ( pharmacodb.pmgenomics.ca ), a database integrating the largest pharmacogenomic studies published to date. Here, we describe how the curation of cell line and chemical compound identifiers maximizes the overlap between datasets and how users can leverage such data to compare and extract robust drug phenotypes. PharmacoDB provides a unique resource to mine a compendium of curated pharmacogenomic datasets that are otherwise disparate and difficult to integrate. Key points Curation of cell line and drug identifiers in the largest pharmacogenomic studies published to date Uniform processing of drug sensitivity data to reduce heterogeneity across studies Multiple drug response summary metrics enabling visual comparison and integrative analysis
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".