Community assessment to advance computational prediction of cancer drug combinations in a pharmacogenomic screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effectiveness of most cancer targeted therapies is short lived since tumors evolve and develop resistance. Combinations of drugs offer the potential to overcome resistance, however the number of possible combinations is vast necessitating data-driven approaches to find optimal treatments tailored to a patient’s tumor. AstraZeneca carried out 11,576 experiments on 910 drug combinations across 85 cancer cell lines, recapitulating in vivo response profiles. These data, the largest openly available screen, were hosted by DREAM alongside deep molecular characterization from the Sanger Institute for a Challenge to computationally predict synergistic drug pairs and associated biomarkers. 160 teams participated to provide the most comprehensive methodological development and subsequent benchmarking to date. Winning methods incorporated prior knowledge of putative drug target interactions. For >60% of drug combinations synergy was reproducibly predicted with an accuracy matching biological replicate experiments, however 20% of drug combinations were poorly predicted by all methods. Genomic rationale for synergy predictions were identified, including antagonism unique to combined PIK3CB/D inhibition with the ADAM17 inhibitor where synergy is seen with other PI3K pathway inhibitors. All data, methods and code are freely available as a resource to the community.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".