A Lung Cancer Mouse Model Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer mortality, exhibits diverse histological subtypes and genetic complexities. Numerous preclinical mouse models have been developed to study lung cancer, but data from these models are disparate, siloed, and difficult to compare in a centralized fashion. Here we established the Lung Cancer Mouse Model Database (LCMMDB), an extensive repository of 1,354 samples from 77 transcriptomic datasets covering 974 samples from genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), 368 samples from carcinogen-induced models, and 12 samples from a spontaneous model. Meticulous curation and collaboration with data depositors have produced a robust and comprehensive database, enhancing the fidelity of the genetic landscape it depicts. The LCMMDB aligns 859 tumors from GEMMs with human lung cancer mutations, enabling comparative analysis and revealing a pressing need to broaden the diversity of genetic aberrations modeled in GEMMs. Accompanying this resource, we developed a web application that offers researchers intuitive tools for in-depth gene expression analysis. With standardized reprocessing of gene expression data, the LCMMDB serves as a powerful platform for cross-study comparison and lays the groundwork for future research, aiming to bridge the gap between mouse models and human lung cancer for improved translational relevance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
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".