ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019
Enhancing the drug discovery process: Bayesian inference for the analysis and comparison of dose-response experiments.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- BiDRA: Bayesian inference as a robust alternative to non-linear regression for dose-response efficiency metrics assessment.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- BayesCurveFit: Enhancing Curve Fitting for Early-Stage Compound Screening Using Bayesian Inference.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A Bayesian approach to the analysis of dose-response data: estimating natural survivorship without Abbott's correction and inclusion of overdispersion estimates.Journal of economic entomology · 2025Article
- An advancement in developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) risk assessment: evaluation of a bioactivity and exposure-based NAM toolbox.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- Article
- Are Non-animal Systemic Safety Assessments Protective? A Toolbox and Workflow.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2022Article
- New cytotoxic compounds from the leaves ofAvicenna journal of phytomedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationThe efficacy of a chemical compound is often tested through dose-response experiments from which efficacy metrics, such as the IC50, can be derived. The Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm (non-linear regression) is commonly used to compute estimations for these metrics. The analysis are however limited and can lead to biased conclusions. The approach does not evaluate the certainty (or uncertainty) of the estimates nor does it allow for the statistical comparison of two datasets. To compensate for these shortcomings, intuition plays an important role in the interpretation of results and the formulations of conclusions. We here propose a Bayesian inference methodology for the analysis and comparison of dose-response experiments.
resultsOur results well demonstrate the informativeness gain of our Bayesian approach in comparison to the commonly used Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm. It is capable to characterize the noise of dataset while inferring probable values distributions for the efficacy metrics. It can also evaluate the difference between the metrics of two datasets and compute the probability that one value is greater than the other. The conclusions that can be drawn from such analyzes are more precise. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: We implemented a simple web interface that allows the users to analyze a single dose-response dataset, as well as to statistically compare the metrics of two datasets.
Indexed as
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.