Assessing therapy response in patient-derived xenografts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying response to drug treatment in mouse models of human cancer is important for treatment development and assignment, yet remains a challenging task. To be able to translate the results of the experiments more readily, a preferred measure to quantify this response should take into account more of the available experimental data, including both tumor size over time and the variation among replicates. We propose a theoretically grounded measure, KuLGaP, to compute the difference between the treatment and control arms. We test and compare KuLGaP to four widely used response measures using 329 patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. Our results show that KuLGaP is more selective than currently existing measures, reduces the risk of false-positive calls, and improves translation of the laboratory results to clinical practice. We also show that outcomes of human treatment better align with the results of the KuLGaP measure than other response measures. KuLGaP has the potential to become a measure of choice for quantifying drug treatment in mouse models as it can be easily used via the kulgap.ca website.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".