MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392561550 · doi:10.1002/pros.24682

Defining the challenges and opportunities for using patient‐derived models in prostate cancer research

2024· review· en· W4392561550 on OpenAlexfundno aff
W. Nathaniel Brennen, Clémentine Le Magnen, Sofia Karkampouna, Nicolás Anselmino, Nathalie Bock, Nicholas Choo, Ashlee K. Clark, Ilsa M. Coleman, Robin Dolgos, Alison Ferguson, David L. Goode, Marianna Krutihof‐de Julio, Nora M. Navone, Peter S. Nelson, Edward O’Neill, Laura H. Porter, Weranja Ranasinghe, Takuro Sunada, Elizabeth D. Williams, Lisa M. Butler, Eva Corey, Renea A. Taylor, Gail P. Risbridger, Mitchell G. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDOD Prostate Cancer Research ProgramNational Cancer InstituteMarshfield Clinic Research FoundationCancer Council NSWNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilJohns Hopkins UniversityProstate Cancer FoundationAdvance QueenslandTour de CureNational Science FoundationKrebsliga Beider BaselUniversitätsspital BaselAustralian GovernmentPA Research FoundationSwiss Cancer Research FoundationPancreatic Cancer UKSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungCancer Council VictoriaPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerCancer AustraliaNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesMovember Foundation
KeywordsProstate cancerTranslational researchStandardizationCancerMedicineProstateVariety (cybernetics)Medical physicsComputer scienceData sciencePathologyInternal medicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.523
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.036 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ProstateSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207