Drug sensitivity prediction from cell line-based pharmacogenomics data: guidelines for developing machine learning models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of precision oncology is to tailor treatment for patients individually using the genomic profile of their tumors. Pharmacogenomics datasets such as cancer cell lines are among the most valuable resources for drug sensitivity prediction, a crucial task of precision oncology. Machine learning methods have been employed to predict drug sensitivity based on the multiple omics data available for large panels of cancer cell lines. However, there are no comprehensive guidelines on how to properly train and validate such machine learning models for drug sensitivity prediction. In this paper, we introduce a set of guidelines for different aspects of training gene expression-based predictors using cell line datasets. These guidelines provide extensive analysis of the generalization of drug sensitivity predictors and challenge many current practices in the community including the choice of training dataset and measure of drug sensitivity. The application of these guidelines in future studies will enable the development of more robust preclinical biomarkers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it