A showcase study on personalized in silico drug response prediction based on the genetic landscape of muscle invasive bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved and cheaper molecular diagnostics allow the shift from "one size fits all" therapies to personalised treatments targeting the individual tumor. However, the wealth of potential targets based on comprehensive sequencing remains a yet unsolved challenge that prevents its routine use in clinical practice. Thus, we designed a workflow that selects the most promising treatment targets based on multi-omics sequencing and in silico drug prediction. In this study we demonstrate the workflow with focus on bladder cancer (BLCA), as there are, to date, no reliable diagnostics available to predict the potential benefit of a therapeutic approach. Within the TCGA-BLCA cohort, our workflow identified a panel of 21 genes and 72 drugs that suggested personalized treatment for 95% of patients-including five genes not yet reported as prognostic markers for clinical testing in BLCA. The automated predictions were complemented by manually curated data, thus allowing for accurate sensitivity- or resistance-directed drug response predictions. We discuss potential improvements of drug-gene interaction databases on the basis of pitfalls that were identified during manual curation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".