Tissue specificity of in vitro drug sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We sought to investigate the tissue specificity of drug sensitivities in large-scale pharmacological studies and compare these associations to those found in drug clinical indications. Materials and Methods: We leveraged the curated cell line response data from PharmacoGx and applied an enrichment algorithm on drug sensitivity values' area under the drug dose-response curves (AUCs) with and without adjustment for general level of drug sensitivity. Results: We observed tissue specificity in 63% of tested drugs, with 8% of total interactions deemed significant (false discovery rate <0.05). By restricting the drug-tissue interactions to those with AUC > 0.2, we found that in 52% of interactions, the tissue was predictive of drug sensitivity (concordance index > 0.65). When compared with clinical indications, the observed overlap was weak (Matthew correlation coefficient, MCC = 0.0003, P > .10). Discussion: While drugs exhibit significant tissue specificity in vitro, there is little overlap with clinical indications. This can be attributed to factors such as underlying biological differences between in vitro models and patient tumors, or the inability of tissue-specific drugs to bring additional benefits beyond gold standard treatments during clinical trials. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis of pan-cancer drug screening datasets indicates that most tested drugs exhibit tissue-specific sensitivities in a large panel of cancer cell lines. However, the observed preclinical results do not translate to the clinical setting. Our results suggest that additional research into showing parallels between preclinical and clinical data is required to increase the translational potential of in vitro drug screening.
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 | 0.037 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".