Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29096442›Full record

ArticleMolecular pharmaceutics2017

Comparison of Deep Learning With Multiple Machine Learning Methods and Metrics Using Diverse Drug Discovery Data Sets.

Alexandru Korotcov, Valery Tkachenko, Daniel P Russo, Sean Ekins

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular pharmaceutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
26.5field-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

119 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 356 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandru KorotcovScience Data Software, LLC , 14914 Bradwill Court, Rockville, Maryland 20850, United States.
Valery TkachenkoScience Data Software, LLC , 14914 Bradwill Court, Rockville, Maryland 20850, United States.
Daniel P RussoCollaborations Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 840 Main Campus Drive, Lab 3510, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606, United States.
Sean EkinsCollaborations Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 840 Main Campus Drive, Lab 3510, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5691-5790
Collaborations Pharmaceuticals (United States) · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

Repurposing pyronaridine as a treatment for the Ebola virusR21TR001718 · NCATS · COLLABORATIONS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. · PI DAVEY, ROBERT A, EKINS, SEAN · 2016 to 2017
$601k
Centralized assay datasets for modelling support of small drug discovery organizationsR43GM122196 · NIGMS · COLLABORATIONS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. · PI EKINS, SEAN · 2017 to 2017
$150k
NCATS NIH HHS R21 TR001718NIGMS NIH HHS R43 GM122196
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning methods have been applied to many data sets in pharmaceutical research for several decades. The relative ease and availability of fingerprint type molecular descriptors paired with Bayesian methods resulted in the widespread use of this approach for a diverse array of end points relevant to drug discovery. Deep learning is the latest machine learning algorithm attracting attention for many of pharmaceutical applications from docking to virtual screening. Deep learning is based on an artificial neural network with multiple hidden layers and has found considerable traction for many artificial intelligence applications. We have previously suggested the need for a comparison of different machine learning methods with deep learning across an array of varying data sets that is applicable to pharmaceutical research. End points relevant to pharmaceutical research include absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADME/Tox) properties, as well as activity against pathogens and drug discovery data sets. In this study, we have used data sets for solubility, probe-likeness, hERG, KCNQ1, bubonic plague, Chagas, tuberculosis, and malaria to compare different machine learning methods using FCFP6 fingerprints. These data sets represent whole cell screens, individual proteins, physicochemical properties as well as a data set with a complex end point. Our aim was to assess whether deep learning offered any improvement in testing when assessed using an array of metrics including AUC, F1 score, Cohen's kappa, Matthews correlation coefficient and others. Based on ranked normalized scores for the metrics or data sets Deep Neural Networks (DNN) ranked higher than SVM, which in turn was ranked higher than all the other machine learning methods. Visualizing these properties for training and test sets using radar type plots indicates when models are inferior or perhaps over trained. These results also suggest the need for assessing deep learning further using multiple metrics with much larger scale comparisons, prospective testing as well as assessment of different fingerprints and DNN architectures beyond those used.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerBayes TheoremDatasets as TopicDrug Discoverydeep learningdrug discoverymachine learningpharmaceuticssupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID29096442
PMCPMC5741413
OpenAlexW2766761250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.