Text-mining-based feature selection for anticancer drug response prediction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Predicting anticancer treatment response from baseline genomic data is a critical obstacle in personalized medicine. Machine learning methods are commonly used for predicting drug response from gene expression data. In the process of constructing these machine learning models, one of the most significant challenges is identifying appropriate features among a massive number of genes. Results In this study, we utilize features (genes) extracted using the text-mining of scientific literatures. Using two independent cancer pharmacogenomic datasets, we demonstrate that text-mining-based features outperform traditional feature selection techniques in machine learning tasks. In addition, our analysis reveals that text-mining feature-based machine learning models trained on in vitro data also perform well when predicting the response of in vivo cancer models. Our results demonstrate that text-mining-based feature selection is an easy to implement approach that is suitable for building machine learning models for anticancer drug response prediction. Availability and implementation https://github.com/merlab/text_features.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it