Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38339281›Full record

ArticleCancers2024

A Comprehensive Investigation of Active Learning Strategies for Conducting Anti-Cancer Drug Screening.

Priyanka Vasanthakumari, Yitan Zhu, Thomas Brettin, Alexander Partin, Maulik Shukla, Fangfang Xia, Oleksandr Narykov, Michael Ryan Weil, Rick L Stevens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Priyanka VasanthakumariDivision of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0822-5936
Yitan ZhuDivision of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.
Thomas BrettinComputing, Environment and Life Sciences, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.
Alexander PartinDivision of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9279-9213
Maulik ShuklaDivision of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.
Fangfang XiaDivision of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6567-0564
Oleksandr NarykovDivision of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3336-0534
Michael Ryan WeilCancer Research Technology Program, Cancer Data Science Initiatives, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD 21701, USA.
Rick L StevensComputing, Environment and Life Sciences, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA.
Argonne National Laboratory · USFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · US

Funding

WORK ORDER 126643 B539 EXPAND IC SUITE75N91019D00024 · NIAID · LEIDOS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, INC. · PI BRISCOE, LYNN · 2019 to 2025
$3932.6M
NCI NIH HHS 75N91019D00024NCI NIH HHS Cancer Moonshot Task Order No. 75N91019F00134
6 · The paper itself

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

active learningcancerdrug discoverydrug response predictionmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID38339281
PMCPMC10854925
OpenAlexW4391251981

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.