Targeting of human cancer stem cells predicts efficacy and toxicity of FDA-approved oncology drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer remains the leading cause of death worldwide with approved oncology drugs continuing to have heterogenous patient responses and accompanied adverse effects (AEs) that limits effectiveness. Here, we examined >100 FDA-approved oncology drugs in the context of stemness using a surrogate model of transformed human pluripotent cancer stem cells (CSCs) vs. healthy stem cells (hSCs) capable of distinguishing abnormal self-renewal and differentiation. Although a proportion of these drugs had no effects (inactive), a larger portion affected CSCs (active), and a unique subset preferentially affected CSCs over hSCs (selective). Single cell gene expression and protein profiling of each drug's FDA recognized target provided a molecular correlation of responses in CSCs vs. hSCs. Uniquely, drugs selective for CSCs demonstrated clinical efficacy, measured by overall survival, and reduced AEs. Our findings reveal that while unintentional, half of anticancer drugs are active against CSCs and associated with improved clinical outcomes. Based on these findings, we suggest ability to target CSC targeting should be included as a property of early onco-therapeutic development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".