Assessment of modelling strategies for drug response prediction in cell lines and xenografts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from several large high-throughput drug response screens have become available to the scientific community recently. Although many efforts have been made to use this information to predict drug sensitivity, our ability to accurately predict drug response based on genetic data remains limited. In order to systematically examine how different aspects of modelling affect the resulting prediction accuracy, we built a range of models for seven drugs (erlotinib, pacliatxel, lapatinib, PLX4720, sorafenib, nutlin-3 and nilotinib) using data from the largest available cell line and xenograft drug sensitivity screens. We found that the drug response metric, the choice of the molecular data type and the number of training samples have a substantial impact on prediction accuracy. We also compared the tasks of drug response prediction with tissue type prediction and found that, unlike for drug response, tissue type can be predicted with high accuracy. Furthermore, we assessed our ability to predict drug response in four xenograft cohorts (treated either with erlotinib, gemcitabine or paclitaxel) using models trained on cell line data. We could predict response in an erlotinib-treated cohort with a moderate accuracy (correlation ≈ 0.5), but were unable to correctly predict responses in cohorts treated with gemcitabine or paclitaxel.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".