Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31510684›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

Enhancing the drug discovery process: Bayesian inference for the analysis and comparison of dose-response experiments.

Caroline Labelle, Anne Marinier, Sébastien Lemieux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  6. Are Non-animal Systemic Safety Assessments Protective? A Toolbox and Workflow.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2022
    Article
  7. New cytotoxic compounds from the leaves ofAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
    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

3 authors.

Caroline LabelleInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Anne MarinierInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Sébastien LemieuxInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsDrug DiscoveryBayes TheoremLinear ModelsProbability

Identifiers

PMID31510684
PMCPMC6612849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.