Improving drug response prediction via integrating gene relationships with deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the drug response of cancer cell lines is crucial for advancing personalized cancer treatment, yet remains challenging due to tumor heterogeneity and individual diversity. In this study, we present a deep learning-based framework named Deep neural network Integrating Prior Knowledge (DIPK) (DIPK), which adopts self-supervised techniques to integrate multiple valuable information, including gene interaction relationships, gene expression profiles and molecular topologies, to enhance prediction accuracy and robustness. We demonstrated the superior performance of DIPK compared to existing methods on both known and novel cells and drugs, underscoring the importance of gene interaction relationships in drug response prediction. In addition, DIPK extends its applicability to single-cell RNA sequencing data, showcasing its capability for single-cell-level response prediction and cell identification. Further, we assess the applicability of DIPK on clinical data. DIPK accurately predicted a higher response to paclitaxel in the pathological complete response (pCR) group compared to the residual disease group, affirming the better response of the pCR group to the chemotherapy compound. We believe that the integration of DIPK into clinical decision-making processes has the potential to enhance individualized treatment strategies for cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".