ArticleACS omega2018
Prediction of Compound Profiling Matrices, Part II: Relative Performance of Multitask Deep Learning and Random Forest Classification on the Basis of Varying Amounts of Training Data.
Article in ACS omega, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of machine learning models for property prediction to targeted protein degraders.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Utilization of a Low-Cost Sensor Array for Mobile Methane Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Review
- Feature Genes in Neuroblastoma Distinguishing High-Risk and Non-high-Risk Neuroblastoma Patients: Development and Validation Combining Random Forest With Artificial Neural Network.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Recent Advances in In Silico Target Fishing.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Evaluation of multi-target deep neural network models for compound potency prediction under increasingly challenging test conditions.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2021Article
- Applicability Domain of Active Learning in Chemical Probe Identification: Convergence in Learning from Non-Specific Compounds and Decision Rule Clarification.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Opportunities and challenges using artificial intelligence in ADME/Tox.Nature materials · 2019Article
- Multiple Machine Learning Comparisons of HIV Cell-based and Reverse Transcriptase Data Sets.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, there is a high level of interest in deep learning and multitask learning in many scientific fields including the life sciences and chemistry. Herein, we investigate the performance of multitask deep neural networks (MT-DNNs) compared to random forest (RF) classification, a standard method in machine learning, in predicting compound profiling experiments. Predictions were carried out on a large profiling matrix extracted from biological screening data. For model building, submatrices with varying data density of 5-100% were generated to investigate the influence of data sparseness on prediction performance. MT-DNN models were directly compared to RF models, and control calculations were also carried out using single-task DNNs (ST-DNNs). On the basis of compound recall, the performance of ST-DNN was consistently lower than that of the other methods. Compared to RF, MT-DNN models only yielded better prediction performance for individual assays in the profiling matrix when training data were very sparse. However, when the matrix density increased to at least 25-45%, per-assay RF models met or partly exceeded the prediction performance of MT-DNN models. When the average performances of RF and MT-DNN over the grid of all targets were compared, MT-DNN was slightly superior to RF, which was a likely consequence of multitask learning. Overall, there was no consistent advantage of MT-DNN over standard RF classification in predicting the results of compound profiling assays under varying conditions. In the presence of very sparse training data, prediction performance was limited. Under these challenging conditions, MT-DNN was the preferred approach. When more training data became available and prediction performance increased, RF performance was not inferior to MT-DNN.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.