PharmacoDB 2.0: improving scalability and transparency of <i>in vitro</i> pharmacogenomics analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer pharmacogenomics studies provide valuable insights into disease progression and associations between genomic features and drug response. PharmacoDB integrates multiple cancer pharmacogenomics datasets profiling approved and investigational drugs across cell lines from diverse tissue types. The web-application enables users to efficiently navigate across datasets, view and compare drug dose-response data for a specific drug-cell line pair. In the new version of PharmacoDB (version 2.0, https://pharmacodb.ca/), we present (i) new datasets such as NCI-60, the Profiling Relative Inhibition Simultaneously in Mixtures (PRISM) dataset, as well as updated data from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) and the Genentech Cell Line Screening Initiative (gCSI); (ii) implementation of FAIR data pipelines using ORCESTRA and PharmacoDI; (iii) enhancements to drug-response analysis such as tissue distribution of dose-response metrics and biomarker analysis; and (iv) improved connectivity to drug and cell line databases in the community. The web interface has been rewritten using a modern technology stack to ensure scalability and standardization to accommodate growing pharmacogenomics datasets. PharmacoDB 2.0 is a valuable tool for mining pharmacogenomics datasets, comparing and assessing drug-response phenotypes of cancer models.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
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".