Applications of Omics Technologies for Three-Dimensional <i>In Vitro</i> Disease Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omics technologies, such as genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, multiomics, and integrated modalities, have greatly contributed to our understanding of various diseases by enabling researchers to probe the molecular wiring of cellular systems in a high-throughput and precise manner. With the development of tissue-engineered three-dimensional (3D) in vitro disease models, such as organoids and spheroids, there is potential of integrating omics technologies with 3D disease models to elucidate the complex links between genotype and phenotype. These 3D disease models have been used to model cancer, infectious disease, toxicity, neurological disorders, and others. In this review, we provide an overview of omics technologies, highlight current and emerging studies, discuss the associated experimental design considerations, barriers and challenges of omics technologies, and provide an outlook on the future applications of omics technologies with 3D models. Overall, this review aims to provide a valuable resource for tissue engineers seeking to leverage omics technologies for diving deeper into biological discovery. Impact statement With the emergence of three-dimensional (3D) in vitro disease models, tissue engineers are increasingly interested to investigate these systems to address biological questions related to disease mechanism, drug target discovery, therapy resistance, and more. Omics technologies are a powerful and high-throughput approach, but their application for 3D disease models is not maximally utilized. This review illustrates the achievements and potential of using omics technologies to leverage the full potential of 3D in vitro disease models. This will improve the quality of such models, advance our understanding of disease, and contribute to therapy development.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".