Bimodality of gene expression in cancer patient tumors as interpretable biomarkers for drug sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Identifying biomarkers predictive of cancer cells’ response to drug treatment constitutes one of the main challenges in precision oncology. Recent large-scale cancer pharmacogenomic studies have boosted the research for finding predictive biomarkers by profiling thousands of human cancer cell lines at the molecular level and screening them with hundreds of approved drugs and experimental chemical compounds. Many studies have leveraged these data to build predictive models of response using various statistical and machine learning methods. However, a common challenge in these methods is the lack of interpretability as to how they make the predictions and which features were the most associated with response, hindering the clinical translation of these models. To alleviate this issue, we develop a new machine learning pipeline based on the recent LOBICO approach that explores the space of bimodally expressed genes in multiple large in vitro pharmacogenomic studies and builds multivariate, nonlinear, yet interpretable logic-based models predictive of drug response. Using our method, we used a compendium of three of the largest pharmacogenomic data sets to build robust and interpretable models for 101 drugs that span 17 drug classes with high validation rate in independent datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".