ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2024
Improving Anticancer Drug Selection and Prioritization via Neural Learning to Rank.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 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.
- Article
- Improving Machine Learning Classification Predictions through SHAP and Features Analysis Interpretation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- A Deep-Learning-Aided Drug Screening Based on Visualization of a Hidden Layer as Chemical Space.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2025Article
- Network Medicine: A Potential Approach for Virtual Drug Screening.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalized cancer treatment requires a thorough understanding of complex interactions between drugs and cancer cell lines in varying genetic and molecular contexts. To address this, high-throughput screening has been used to generate large-scale drug response data, facilitating data-driven computational models. Such models can capture complex drug-cell line interactions across various contexts in a fully data-driven manner. However, accurately prioritizing the most effective drugs for each cell line still remains a significant challenge. To address this, we developed multiple neural ranking approaches that leverage large-scale drug response data across multiple cell lines from diverse cancer types. Unlike existing approaches that primarily utilize regression and classification techniques for drug response prediction, we formulated the objective of drug selection and prioritization as a drug ranking problem. In this work, we proposed multiple pairwise and listwise neural ranking methods that learn latent representations of drugs and cell lines and then use those representations to score drugs in each cell line via a learnable scoring function. Specifically, we developed neural pairwise and listwise ranking methods, Pair-PushC and List-One on top of the existing methods, pLETORg and ListNet, respectively. Additionally, we proposed a novel listwise ranking method, List-All, that focuses on all the effective drugs instead of the top effective drug, unlike List-One. We also provide an exhaustive empirical evaluation with state-of-the-art regression and ranking baselines on large-scale data sets across multiple experimental settings. Our results demonstrate that our proposed ranking methods mostly outperform the best baselines with significant improvements of as much as 25.6% in terms of selecting truly effective drugs within the top 20 predicted drugs (i.e., hit@20) across 50% test cell lines. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that the learned latent spaces from our proposed methods demonstrate informative clustering structures and capture relevant underlying biological features. Moreover, our comprehensive evaluation provides a thorough and objective comparison of the performance of different methods (including our proposed ones).
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.