MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract IA003: Refining our understanding of ADCs: Drug development insights from 40 years of data

2023· article· en· W4389227449 on OpenAlexaff
Raffaele Colombo

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsZymeworks (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagic bulletMedicineDrugLinkerPharmacologyComputational biologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) have emerged as an effective and promising class of cancer therapeutics. Over the past 40 years, over 300 new ADCs have entered the clinic, culminating in 11 FDA approvals to date. Recently, the increased volume of clinical data related to ADCs has substantially advanced our understanding of this therapeutic class. Despite their rising popularity, there are three prevailing ADC dogma that are widely accepted without challenge: - ADCs widen the therapeutic window of the conjugated drug by both increasing the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and reducing the minimum efficacious dose (MED) of the drug (the therapeutic window dogma). - A highly stable linker is paramount to the clinical success of the ADC (the stability dogma). - ADCs deliver conjugated drugs selectively to cancer cells while sparing normal cells (the magic bullet dogma). Clinical evidence does not consistently support these beliefs. An improved understanding of how ADCs work is critical to the enhanced design and development of this therapeutic class. Consequently, the canonical ADC dogma need to be refined in light of emerging clinical data. Revised therapeutic window dogma: ADCs do not significantly increase the MTD of their conjugated drugs. Instead, when dosed at or near their MTDs, ADCs exhibit higher efficacy compared to corresponding small molecules. Revised stability dogma: antibody-linker instabilities and linker-drug instabilities are common across many ADCs, including all the approved ADCs (i.e., none of the approved ADCs feature a stable linker). Unexpected toxicities have often emerged among ADCs containing overly stabilized linkers. Revised magic bullet dogma: ADCs significantly alter the exposure of the conjugated drug. Targeted drug delivery and non-targeted uptake, in combination with linker instabilities, contribute to the sustained drug concentration at the tumor site. Citation Format: Raffaele Colombo. Refining our understanding of ADCs: Drug development insights from 40 years of data [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2023 Oct 11-15; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2023;22(12 Suppl):Abstract nr IA003.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207