The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Perspective on Tissue-Based Technologies for Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Discovery and Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With immuno-oncology becoming the standard of care for a variety of cancers, identifying biomarkers that reliably classify patient response, resistance, or toxicity becomes the next critical barrier toward improving care. Multiparametric, multi-omics, and computational platforms generating an unprecedented depth of data are poised to usher in the discovery of increasingly robust biomarkers for enhanced patient selection and personalized treatment approaches. Deciding which developing technologies to implement in clinical settings ultimately, applied either alone or in combination, relies on weighing pros and cons, from minimizing patient sampling to maximizing data outputs, and assessing the reproducibility and representativeness of findings, while lessening data fragmentation toward harmonization. These factors are all assessed while taking into consideration the shortest turnaround time. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Biomarkers Committee convened to identify important advances in biomarker technologies and to address advances in biomarker discovery using multiplexed IHC and immunofluorescence, their coupling to single-cell transcriptomics, along with mass spectrometry-based quantitative and spatially resolved proteomics imaging technologies. We summarize key metrics obtained, ease of interpretation, limitations and dependencies, technical improvements, and outward comparisons of these technologies. By highlighting the most interesting recent data contributed by these technologies and by providing ways to improve their outputs, we hope to guide correlative research directions and assist in their evolution toward becoming clinically useful in immuno-oncology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".