Defining the challenges and opportunities for using patient‐derived models in prostate cancer research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are relatively few widely used models of prostate cancer compared to other common malignancies. This impedes translational prostate cancer research because the range of models does not reflect the diversity of disease seen in clinical practice. In response to this challenge, research laboratories around the world have been developing new patient-derived models of prostate cancer, including xenografts, organoids, and tumor explants. METHODS: In May 2023, we held a workshop at the Monash University Prato Campus for researchers with expertise in establishing and using a variety of patient-derived models of prostate cancer. This review summarizes our collective ideas on how patient-derived models are currently being used, the common challenges, and future opportunities for maximizing their usefulness in prostate cancer research. RESULTS: An increasing number of patient-derived models for prostate cancer are being developed. Despite their individual limitations and varying success rates, these models are valuable resources for exploring new concepts in prostate cancer biology and for preclinical testing of potential treatments. Here we focus on the need for larger collections of models that represent the changing treatment landscape of prostate cancer, robust readouts for preclinical testing, improved in vitro culture conditions, and integration of the tumor microenvironment. Additional priorities include ensuring model reproducibility, standardization, and replication, and streamlining the exchange of models and data sets among research groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are several opportunities to maximize the impact of patient-derived models on prostate cancer research. We must develop large, diverse and accessible cohorts of models and more sophisticated methods for emulating the intricacy of patient tumors. In this way, we can use the samples that are generously donated by patients to advance the outcomes of patients in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".