Bimodal Gene Expression in Patients with Cancer Provides Interpretable Biomarkers for Drug Sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying biomarkers predictive of cancer cell response to drug treatment constitutes one of the main challenges in precision oncology. Recent large-scale cancer pharmacogenomic studies have opened new avenues of research to develop predictive biomarkers by profiling thousands of human cancer cell lines at the molecular level and screening them with hundreds of approved drugs and experimental chemical compounds. Many studies have leveraged these data to build predictive models of response using various statistical and machine learning methods. However, a common pitfall to these methods is the lack of interpretability as to how they make predictions, hindering the clinical translation of these models. To alleviate this issue, we used the recent logic modeling approach to develop a new machine learning pipeline that explores the space of bimodally expressed genes in multiple large in vitro pharmacogenomic studies and builds multivariate, nonlinear, yet interpretable logic-based models predictive of drug response. The performance of this approach was showcased in a compendium of the three largest in vitro pharmacogenomic datasets to build robust and interpretable models for 101 drugs that span 17 drug classes with high validation rates in independent datasets. These results along with in vivo and clinical validation support a better translation of gene expression biomarkers between model systems using bimodal gene expression. SIGNIFICANCE: A new machine learning pipeline exploits the bimodality of gene expression to provide a reliable set of candidate predictive biomarkers with a high potential for clinical translatability.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".