ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2022
Unleashing high content screening in hit detection - Benchmarking AI workflows including novelty detection.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Decade in a Systematic Review: The Evolution and Impact of Cell Painting.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Unleashing high content screening in hit detection - Benchmarking AI workflows including novelty detection.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complex mixtures containing natural products are still an interesting source of novel drug candidates. High content screening (HCS) is a popular tool to screen for such. In particular, multiplexed HCS assays promise comprehensive bioactivity profiles, but generate also high amounts of data. Yet, only some machine learning (ML) applications for data analysis are available and these usually require a profound knowledge of the underlying cell biology. Unfortunately, there are no applications that simply predict if samples are biologically active or not (any kind of bioactivity). Within this work, we benchmark ML algorithms for binary classification, starting with classical ML models, which are the standard classifiers of the scikit-learn library or ensemble models of these classifiers (a total of 92 models tested). Followed by a partial least square regression (PLSR)-based classification (44 tested models in total) and simple artificial neural networks (ANNs) with dense layers (72 tested models in total). In addition, a novelty detection (ND) was examined, which is supposed to handle unknown patterns. For the final analysis the models, with and without upstream ND, were tested with two independent data sets. In our analysis, a stacking model, an ensamble model of class ML algorithms, performed best to predict new and unknown data. ND improved the predictions of the models and was useful to handle unknown patterns. Importantly, the classifier presented here can be easily rebuilt and be adapted to the data and demands of other groups. The hit detector (ND + stacking model) is universal and suitable for a broader application to support the search for new drug candidates.
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.