Four NSCLC drug targets, ranked from evidence
A small, real run: four non-small cell lung cancer drug targets (ALK, EGFR, KRAS, MET) compared pairwise on 20 criteria by one LLM judge, using only the evidence dossiers collected beforehand. 240 judgements, about a fifth of them abstentions where the dossiers held no usable evidence. The ranking is a Bayesian Bradley-Terry-Davidson posterior with intervals; every judgement, rationale and cited source is open below. Not a clinical recommendation.
Content in the run’s language (EN)
Context
- Tissue
- Lung
- Disease
- non-small cell lung cancer
- Modality
- Small Molecule
- Cell_Type
- mucus-producing glandular cells
- Biomarker_Set
- Genomic biomarkers
- Model_Context
- Patient-Derived Xenograft
- Patient_Segment
- Newly diagnosed
- Backbone_Therapy
- Chemotherapy
- Standard_of_Care
- Chemotherapy
- Experimental_Context
- In vivo proof-of-concept study
- Direction_of_Modulation
- Inhibition
Leaderboard
| Rank | Candidate | Posterior μ | Interval | Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ALK * | 0.91 | [0.51, 1.32] | 89 |
| 2 | MET | 0.42 | [0.02, 0.82] | 90 |
| 3 | KRAS * | -0.54 | [-0.94, -0.13] | 89 |
| 4 | EGFR | -0.79 | [-1.20, -0.39] | 84 |
* Not decided: the 94% interval overlaps with the next rank, the two are not separated.
Explanation
Front group: ALK and MET; back group: KRAS and EGFR. The separation between the groups is robust (the intervals do not overlap); within a group the order is not decided.
Of 240 judgements, 53 are abstentions. Q12 and Q17: almost only abstentions, no contribution to the order. Q3 and Q4: at least half abstentions. Not in the overall rating: Q12. For Q3, Q12, and Q17 this suggests a run context that does not match the dossiers (run: Small Molecule, dossiers: small-molecule inhibitor). For Q4 this suggests a gap in the dossier schema, not thin dossiers or the context.
For Q1 and Q8 the judge changed its answer in 3 of 6 mirrored pairs: position, not evidence. For Q18 and Q19 the judge changed its answer in 4 of 6 mirrored pairs: position, not evidence.
The order only compares these 4 candidates with each other, only applies in the context Lung, non-small cell lung cancer, Small Molecule and 8 more and is based on the dossiers as of 09/09/2026.
What the ranking does not prove
- The ranking is only relative between these candidates, not an absolute value.
- The explanation only holds in this context, not in general.
- Dossier as of Sep 9, 2026
Self-consistency
Shows how often a judge reaches the same verdict when the order is swapped, without rating the ranking.
Overall
| pairs judged twice | share flipped | |
|---|---|---|
| below 60% | 0 | – |
| 60–79% | 53 | 45.3% |
| 80–94% | 45 | 13.3% |
| 95% or above | 22 | 0% |
Uninformative criteria
- Combination potential — The run’s context differs from the dossier. (Not included in the overall score.)