Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33057035›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Statistical models for identifying frequent hitters in high throughput screening.

Samuel Goodwin, Golnaz Shahtahmassebi, Quentin S Hanley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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.

Samuel GoodwinSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK.
Golnaz ShahtahmassebiSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK.
Quentin S HanleySchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK. quentin.hanley@ntu.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High throughput screening (HTS) interrogates compound libraries to find those that are "active" in an assay. To better understand compound behavior in HTS, we assessed an existing binomial survivor function (BSF) model of "frequent hitters" using 872 publicly available HTS data sets. We found large numbers of "infrequent hitters" using this model leading us to reject the BSF for identifying "frequent hitters." As alternatives, we investigated generalized logistic, gamma, and negative binomial distributions as models for compound behavior. The gamma model reduced the proportion of both frequent and infrequent hitters relative to the BSF. Within this data set, conclusions about individual compound behavior were limited by the number of times individual compounds were tested (1-1613 times) and disproportionate testing of some compounds. Specifically, most tests (78%) were on a 309,847-compound subset (17.6% of compounds) each tested ≥ 300 times. We concluded that the disproportionate retesting of some compounds represents compound repurposing at scale rather than drug discovery. The approach to drug discovery represented by these 872 data sets characterizes the assays well by challenging them with many compounds while each compound is characterized poorly with a single assay. Aggregating the testing information from each compound across the multiple screens yielded a continuum with no clear boundary between normal and frequent hitting compounds.

Identifiers

PMID33057035
PMCPMC7560657

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.