Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31295321›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Predicting drug activity against cancer cells by random forest models based on minimal genomic information and chemical properties.

Alex P Lind, Peter C Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Computational Approaches: A New Frontier in Cancer Research.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2024
    Review
  20. Identification and validation of microtubule depolymerizing agent, CYT997, as a potential drug candidate for hepatocellular carcinoma.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Alex P LindPhysical Sciences Division, University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, Washington, United States of America.
Peter C AndersonPhysical Sciences Division, University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5494-9866

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A key goal of precision medicine is predicting the best drug therapy for a specific patient from genomic information. In oncology, cancers that appear similar pathologically can vary greatly in how they respond to the same drug. Fortunately, data from high-throughput screening programs often reveal important relationships between genomic variability of cancer cells and their response to drugs. Nevertheless, many current computational methods to predict compound activity against cancer cells require large quantities of genomic, epigenomic, and additional cellular data to develop and to apply. Here we integrate recent screening data and machine learning to train classification models that predict the activity/inactivity of compounds against cancer cells based on the mutational status of only 145 oncogenes and a set of compound structural descriptors. Using IC50 values of 1 μM as activity cutoffs, our predictive models have sensitivities of 87%, specificities of 87%, and yield an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve equal to 0.94. We also develop regression models to predict log(IC50) values of compounds for cancer cells; the models achieve a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.86 for cross-validation and up to 0.65-0.73 against blind test sets. Predictive performance remains strong when as few as 50 oncogenes are included. Finally, even when 40% of experimental IC50 values are missing from screening data, they can be imputed with sufficient reliability that classification accuracy is not diminished. The presented models are fast to generate and may serve as easily implemented screening tools for personalized oncology medicine, drug repurposing, and drug discovery.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalDrug DiscoveryGenomicsHumansMachine LearningNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31295321
PMCPMC6622537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.