Machine learning-based prediction of response to PARP inhibition across cancer types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are FDA approved for the treatment of BRCA1/2 deficient breast and ovarian cancer, but a growing body of pre-clinical evidence suggests the drug class holds therapeutic potential in other cancer types, independent of BRCA1/2 status. Large-scale pharmacogenomic datasets offer the opportunity to develop predictors of response to PARPi’s in many cancer types, expanding their potential clinical applicability. Response to the PARPi olaparib was used to identify a multi-gene PARPi response signature in a large in vitro dataset including multiple cancer types, such as breast, ovarian, pancreatic, lung cancer, osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma, using machine learning approaches. The signature was validated on multiple independent in vitro datasets, also testing for response to another PARPi, rucaparib, as well as two clinical datasets using the cisplatin response as a surrogate for PARPi response. Finally, integrative pharmacogenomic analysis was performed to identify drugs which may be effective in PARPi resistant tumors. A PARPi response signature was defined as the 50 most differentially transcribed genes between PARPi resistant and sensitive cell lines from several different cancer types. Cross validated predictors generated with LASSO logistic regression using the PARPi signature genes accurately predicted PARPi response in a training set of olaparib treated cell lines (80-89%), an independent olaparib treated in vitro dataset (66-77%), and an independent rucaparib treated in vitro dataset (80-87%). The PARPi signature also significantly predicted in vitro breast cancer response to olaparib in another separate experimental dataset. The signature also predicted clinical response to cisplatin and survival in human ovarian cancer and osteosarcoma datasets. Robust transcriptional differences between PARPi sensitive and resistant tumors accurately predict PARPi response in vitro and cisplatin response in vivo for multiple tumor types with or without known BRCA1/2 deficiency. These signatures may prove useful for predicting response in patients treated with PARP inhibitors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".