Craft and publish engaging content in an app built for creators.
NEW
Publish anywhere
Post on LinkedIn, Threads, & Mastodon at the same time, in one click.
Make it punchier 👊
Typefully
@typefully
We're launching a Command Bar today with great commands and features.
AI ideas and rewrites
Get suggestions, tweet ideas, and rewrites powered by AI.
Turn your tweets & threads into a social blog
Give your content new life with our beautiful, sharable pages. Make it go viral on other platforms too.
+14
Followers
Powerful analytics to grow faster
Easily track your engagement analytics to improve your content and grow faster.
Build in public
Share a recent learning with your followers.
Create engagement
Pose a thought-provoking question.
Never run out of ideas
Get prompts and ideas whenever you write - with examples of popular tweets.
@aaditsh
I think this thread hook could be improved.
@frankdilo
On it 🔥
Share drafts & leave comments
Write with your teammates and get feedback with comments.
NEW
Easlo
@heyeaslo
Reply with "Notion" to get early access to my new template.
Jaga
@kandros5591
Notion 🙏
DM Sent
Create giveaways with Auto-DMs
Send DMs automatically based on engagement with your tweets.
And much more:
Auto-Split Text in Posts
Thread Finisher
Tweet Numbering
Pin Drafts
Connect Multiple Accounts
Automatic Backups
Dark Mode
Keyboard Shortcuts
Creators love Typefully
170,000+ creators and teams chose Typefully to curate their Twitter presence.
Marc Köhlbrugge@marckohlbrugge
Tweeting more with @typefully these days.
🙈 Distraction-free
✍️ Write-only Twitter
🧵 Effortless threads
📈 Actionable metrics
I recommend giving it a shot.
Jurre Houtkamp@jurrehoutkamp
Typefully is fantastic and way too cheap for what you get.
We’ve tried many alternatives at @framer but nothing beats it. If you’re still tweeting from Twitter you’re wasting time.
DHH@dhh
This is my new go-to writing environment for Twitter threads.
They've built something wonderfully simple and distraction free with Typefully 😍
Santiago@svpino
For 24 months, I tried almost a dozen Twitter scheduling tools.
Then I found @typefully, and I've been using it for seven months straight.
When it comes down to the experience of scheduling and long-form content writing, Typefully is in a league of its own.
Luca Rossi ꩜@lucaronin
After trying literally all the major Twitter scheduling tools, I settled with @typefully.
Killer feature to me is the native image editor — unique and super useful 🙏
Visual Theory@visualtheory_
Really impressed by the way @typefully has simplified my Twitter writing + scheduling/publishing experience.
Beautiful user experience.
0 friction.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Queue your content in seconds
Write, schedule and boost your tweets - with no need for extra apps.
Schedule with one click
Queue your post with a single click - or pick a time manually.
Pick the perfect time
Time each post to perfection with Typefully's performance analytics.
Boost your content
Retweet and plug your posts for automated engagement.
Start creating a content queue.
Write once, publish everywhere
We natively support multiple platforms, so that you can expand your reach easily.
Check the analytics that matter
Build your audience with insights that make sense.
Writing prompts & personalized post ideas
Break through writer's block with great ideas and suggestions.
Never run out of ideas
Enjoy daily prompts and ideas to inspire your writing.
Use AI for personalized suggestions
Get inspiration from ideas based on your own past tweets.
Flick through topics
Or skim through curated collections of trending tweets for each topic.
Write, edit, and track tweets together
Write and publish with your teammates and friends.
Share your drafts
Brainstorm and bounce ideas with your teammates.
NEW
@aaditsh
I think this thread hook could be improved.
@frankdilo
On it 🔥
Add comments
Get feedback from coworkers before you hit publish.
Read, Write, Publish
Read, WriteRead
Control user access
Decide who can view, edit, or publish your drafts.
The science of #immunotherapy can cure a patient's otherwise incurable cancer.
But sometimes immunotherapy fails completely
Shockingly, we hardly know why.
A meta-analysis of #Genomics & #Transcriptomics in >1,000 immunotherapy-treated patients aims to better understand why🧵
Some context:
PD-1 & PD-L1 inhibitors are examples of ICIs.
ICI is a type of immunotherapy that un-blocks the immune system & allows it to mount attacks🤺
It does it by inhibiting checkpoints (s.a. PD-1 & PD-L1): proteins that keep the immune system from attacking its own self
This meta-analysis gathered 1,008 ICI-treated patients from 12 cohorts (with clinical outcome) with the goal of identifying predictors of immune checkpoint inhibition sensitization.
It reprocessed all data with a uniform #Bioinformatics pipeline to maximize cohort comparability.
Key takeaways from a thorough analysis👇
1. Putting all this data together
2. Consistent pipeline for re-analysis
3. Literature browsing for biomarkers (723 articles yielding 55 unique biomarkers)
4. Predictive capacity of individual biomarkers
5. Multivariate predictive model
Immune checkpoint blockade biomarkers can be grouped into four categories (used throughout the paper):
1. neoantigen-related (surrogate for T-cell reactivity)
2. immune evasion capabilities (driving resistance)
3. host factors (HLA)
4. immune infiltration capabilities
After re-preprocessing all data, the predictive capacity of each biomarker was assessed separately (odds ratio on the side).
Clonal TMB (number of non- synonymous mutations estimated to be present in every cancer cell) & total TMB had strongest effect sizes across all 12 studies
Some context:
Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a known immunotherapy response biomarker, but its applicability across cancer types is controversial.
Recent works showed that high TMB is a viable predictor in tumors only if CD8+ T cells positively correlate with neoantigen load.
twitter.com/simocristea/status/1598773246887104517?s=20&t=fLqHHj4NF-4yX3mQDUlj9g
Biomarker analysis in the second category (immune escape) showed no significant association between the level of somatic copy-number alteration (SCNA), measured using the weighted genome instability index, and checkpoint inhibitors response.
More context:
Whether the copy alteration landscape of a tumor is predictive of immunotherapy response or not is another controversial topic, with recent papers reaching contradictory conclusions.
Likely predictive value is small, and larger sample size is needed.
twitter.com/simocristea/status/1613542247093653512?s=20&t=fLqHHj4NF-4yX3mQDUlj9g
Interestingly, when analyzing biomarkers of immune infiltration, CXCL9 expression was a strong predictor of immunotherapy response.
CXCL9 contributes to regulating immune cell migration, differentiation and activation.
cancertreatmentreviews.com/article/S0305-7372(17)30199-8/fulltext
Next, the data was analyzed separately per cancer/drug type, with at least 2 cohorts available: melanoma anti-PD-1/L1 and anti-CTLA-4, urothelial carcinoma anti-PD-1/L1 & non-small cell lung cancer anti-PD-1/L1.
The significant biomarkers were similar to the pan-cancer analysis.
Specifically, more than 80% of biomarkers significant in individual histologies were also significant pan-cancer.
This might also be a consequence of the small sample size in separate cohorts.
Effect sizes also varied: e.g. TMB was weaker in melanoma vs. urothelial carcinoma.
Biomarkers within each category correlated highly with eachother (e.g. TMB & clonal TMB, or immune infiltration CD8A & CXCL9).
However, the correlation between separate biomarker categories was generally low,suggesting potential of combining categories into a multivariable test.
Next, the paper quantified the total proportion of variance in checkpoint inhibitors response that could be explained by all biomarkers mentioned above.
For 3/4 studies, ~60% variance was explainable, suggesting that ~40% of the factors determining outcome remain unknown.
The natural next question is whether & how could these biomarkers be combined into a single metric predicting response.
XGBoost was used for this, on the 11 most significant biomarkers from the individual analyses.
The predictive model was first applied on the 4 different cancer types separately. The results were similar, hence a pan-cancer model was trained on all n=1,008 samples, with the goal to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
The pan-cancer multivariable model outperformed a TMB-only model on predicting checkpoint inhibitor response across three independent test cohorts totaling 350 samples.
A simple two-marker model (clonal TMB and CXCL9 expression) performed reasonably well, also outperforming TMB.
Another interesting avenue are mutational signatures: n = 774 samples were use to calculate the proportion of mutations in a given sample attributable to each signature from the complete set of COSMIC mutational signatures (Alexandrov et al. 2015).
Testing for association between the proportion of mutations fitting each signature & immune checkpoint response found 5/20 significant mutational processes:
signature 1A (aging)
signature 4 (tobacco)
signature 7 (UV)
signature 10 (POLE)
signature 2+13(APOBEC)
These associations remained significant after correcting for total mutation count (TMB), suggesting that not only the amount, but also the type of mutations are important.
All signatures (except aging) were associated with an improved chance of response to checkpoint inhibitors.
Even though this study found that the total burden of SCNAs is not predictive of response, some specific alterations were still significantly associated.
One of these significant alterations was loss of 9q34.
However, this result hasn't been experimentally validated.
Another example is the focal amplification of CCND1: tumors with CCND1 amplification were found to have significantly lower rates of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Lastly, this comprehensive analysis could be the foundation for clinical implementation.
A standardized assay combining exome sequencing & targeted gene expression data could be used on patient tumor samples to compute a multivariable predictive score of immunotherapy response.
For clinical implementation, it is clear though that specific cancer/treatment models will be more accurate than pan-cancer models.
However, available immunotherapy data cohorts are still very low in sample size.
Therefore, for now, a pan-cancer model could still be informative
To conclude, this paper is a must-read if you are working on #cancer#immunotherapy#Datascience
Still, identifying the factors predictive of immunotherapy response is a difficult task,and likely much larger sample sizes will be needed for truly reliable & implementable findings