MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310456813 · doi:10.1177/11769351221136056

Optimizing Drug Response Study Design in Patient-Derived Tumor Xenografts

2022· article· en· W4310456813 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineStatistical significanceDrugDrug responseStatistical powerSample size determinationOncologyPharmacologyInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient-derived tumor xenograft (PDX) models were used to evaluate the effectiveness of preclinical anticancer agents. A design using 1 mouse per patient per drug (1 × 1 × 1) was considered practical for large-scale drug efficacy studies. We evaluated modifiable parameters that could increase the statistical power of this design based on our consolidated PDX experiments. Real studies were used as a reference to investigate the relationship between statistical power with treatment effect size, inter-mouse variation, and tumor measurement frequencies. Our results showed that large effect sizes could be detected at a significance level of .2 or .05 under a 1 × 1 × 1 design. We found that the minimum number of mice required to achieve 80% power at an alpha level of .05 under all situations explored was 21 mice per group for a small effect size and 5 mice per group for a medium effect size.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it