Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24898935›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2014

Quantitative scoring of differential drug sensitivity for individually optimized anticancer therapies.

Bhagwan Yadav, Tea Pemovska, Agnieszka Szwajda, Evgeny Kulesskiy, Mika Kontro, Riikka Karjalainen, Muntasir Mamun Majumder, Disha Malani, Astrid Murumägi, Jonathan Knowles and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 234 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
234citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

234 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 360 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Protein Profiles Predict Treatment Responses to the PI3K Inhibitor Umbralisib in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. iScience · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Harmonization and integration of pharmacogenomics screens.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

174 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bhagwan YadavInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tea PemovskaInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Agnieszka SzwajdaInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Evgeny KulesskiyInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Mika KontroHematology Research Unit, Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUCH), Helsinki, Finland.
Riikka KarjalainenInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Muntasir Mamun MajumderInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Disha MalaniInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Astrid MurumägiInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Jonathan KnowlesInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Kimmo PorkkaHematology Research Unit, Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUCH), Helsinki, Finland.
Caroline HeckmanInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Olli KallioniemiInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Krister WennerbergInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tero AittokallioInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland · FIHelsinki University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We developed a systematic algorithmic solution for quantitative drug sensitivity scoring (DSS), based on continuous modeling and integration of multiple dose-response relationships in high-throughput compound testing studies. Mathematical model estimation and continuous interpolation makes the scoring approach robust against sources of technical variability and widely applicable to various experimental settings, both in cancer cell line models and primary patient-derived cells. Here, we demonstrate its improved performance over other response parameters especially in a leukemia patient case study, where differential DSS between patient and control cells enabled identification of both cancer-selective drugs and drug-sensitive patient sub-groups, as well as dynamic monitoring of the response patterns and oncogenic driver signals during cancer progression and relapse in individual patient cells ex vivo. An open-source and easily extendable implementation of the DSS calculation is made freely available to support its tailored application to translating drug sensitivity testing results into clinically actionable treatment options.

Indexed as

Precision MedicineAlgorithmsAntineoplastic AgentsCase-Control StudiesDrug Resistance, NeoplasmHumansLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteModels, TheoreticalNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalTumor Cells, CulturedAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID24898935
PMCPMC4046135
OpenAlexW2002783575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.