Back

Systematic Evaluation of Transfer Learning Strategies for Clinical Chemotherapy Response Prediction

Du, H.; Ballester, P.

2026-02-17 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.02.16.706121 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurately predicting chemotherapy response remains a major challenge in precision oncology. Although machine-learning models based on tumour omics data have shown promise, the majority of existing studies are trained and evaluated on pre-clinical cell-line datasets, leaving their clinical applicability insufficiently characterised. In this study, we systematically evaluate a range of transfer-learning strategies for chemotherapy response prediction under realistic clinical constraints using patient data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Rather than proposing a new predictive model, we focus on assessing the effectiveness and limitations of commonly used approaches for transferring pre-clinical knowledge to clinical settings. These include cell-line-validated biomarkers, biologically informed feature representations, direct application of pre-clinical deep-learning models, model fine-tuning, and hybrid strategies that integrate pre-clinical predictions with clinical data. All methods are evaluated within a unified framework using consistent cohort construction, shared performance metrics, and bias-controlled validation procedures. Across multiple drugs and molecular data types, we find that most transfer strategies--including biomarker-based feature selection and direct pre-clinical model transfer--fail to produce robust or consistent improvements in clinical prediction performance. In contrast, conservative approaches based on fine-tuning pre-clinical models or incorporating pre-clinical predictions as features in clinical models yield more stable and reproducible gains. Further improvements are observed when basic pre-treatment clinical variables are integrated. Together, our results demonstrate the practical boundaries of pre-clinical to clinical transfer for drug response prediction and highlight hybrid and fine-tuning strategies as more reliable baselines for future translational modelling efforts.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 2%
12.3%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.1%
3
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.8%
6
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
7
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.1%
8
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
10
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
11
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
12
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
14
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.5%
17
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
207 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
20
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
21
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
22
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
24
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
25
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.9%
26
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
28
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
29
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%