ArticleCancers2024
A Comprehensive Investigation of Active Learning Strategies for Conducting Anti-Cancer Drug Screening.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Active learning-guided mechanistic modeling reveals context-specific regulators of CXCL9 expression in pancreatic cancer cells.Molecular systems biology · 2026Article
- Query Matters: How Selection Strategies Influence Active Learning in Drug Discovery.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Optimizing drug design by merging generative AI with a physics-based active learning framework.Communications chemistry · 2025Article
- Advancing genetic engineering with active learning: theory, implementations and potential opportunities.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
It is well-known that cancers of the same histology type can respond differently to a treatment. Thus, computational drug response prediction is of paramount importance for both preclinical drug screening studies and clinical treatment design. To build drug response prediction models, treatment response data need to be generated through screening experiments and used as input to train the prediction models. In this study, we investigate various active learning strategies of selecting experiments to generate response data for the purposes of (1) improving the performance of drug response prediction models built on the data and (2) identifying effective treatments. Here, we focus on constructing drug-specific response prediction models for cancer cell lines. Various approaches have been designed and applied to select cell lines for screening, including a random, greedy, uncertainty, diversity, combination of greedy and uncertainty, sampling-based hybrid, and iteration-based hybrid approach. All of these approaches are evaluated and compared using two criteria: (1) the number of identified hits that are selected experiments validated to be responsive, and (2) the performance of the response prediction model trained on the data of selected experiments. The analysis was conducted for 57 drugs and the results show a significant improvement on identifying hits using active learning approaches compared with the random and greedy sampling method. Active learning approaches also show an improvement on response prediction performance for some of the drugs and analysis runs compared with the greedy sampling method.
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.