Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25418113›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2014

Systematic prediction of drug combinations based on clinical side-effects.

Hui Huang, Ping Zhang, Xiaoyan A Qu, Philippe Sanseau, Lun Yang

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Drug repurposing for cancer therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Machine learning in the prediction of cancer therapy.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hui Huang1] Computational Biology, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America [2] School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.
Ping ZhangHealthcare Analytics Research, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, United States of America.
Xiaoyan A QuComputational Biology, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States of America.
Philippe SanseauComputational Biology, GlaxoSmithKline, Stevenage, United Kingdom.
Lun YangComputational Biology, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
GlaxoSmithKline (United States) · USGlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GBIBM (United States) · USResearch Triangle Park Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug co-prescription (or drug combination) is a therapeutic strategy widely used as it may improve efficacy and reduce side-effect (SE). Since it is impractical to screen all possible drug combinations for every indication, computational methods have been developed to predict new combinations. In this study, we describe a novel approach that utilizes clinical SEs from post-marketing surveillance and the drug label to predict 1,508 novel drug-drug combinations. It outperforms other prediction methods, achieving an AUC of 0.92 compared to an AUC of 0.69 in a previous method, on a much larger drug combination set (245 drug combinations in our dataset compared to 75 in previous work.). We further found from the feature selection that three FDA black-box warned serious SEs, namely pneumonia, haemorrhage rectum, and retinal bleeding, contributed mostly to the predictions and a model only using these three SEs can achieve an average area under curve (AUC) at 0.80 and accuracy at 0.91, potentially with its simplicity being recognized as a practical rule-of-three in drug co-prescription or making fixed-dose drug combination. We also demonstrate this performance is less likely to be influenced by confounding factors such as biased disease indications or chemical structures.

Indexed as

Drug CombinationsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsModels, TheoreticalArea Under CurveDatabases, FactualDrug InteractionsGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansPneumoniaProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingRetinal HemorrhageROC CurveDrug Combinations

Identifiers

PMID25418113
PMCPMC4241517
OpenAlexW2054768549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.