ArticleRSC medicinal chemistry2024
Systematic generation and analysis of counterfactuals for compound activity predictions using multi-task models.
Article in RSC medicinal chemistry, 2024. 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.
- Chemically Interpretable Explanations for Molecular Property Prediction via Fragment-Level Shapley Values.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for molecular design in pharmaceutical research.Chemical science · 2026Review
- Explainable artificial intelligence for materials discovery: application to catalysts for the HER and ORR.Chemical science · 2026Article
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
Most machine learning (ML) methods produce predictions that are hard or impossible to understand. The black box nature of predictive models obscures potential learning bias and makes it difficult to recognize and trace problems. Moreover, the inability to rationalize model decisions causes reluctance to accept predictions for experimental design. For ML, limited trust in predictions presents a substantial problem and continues to limit its impact in interdisciplinary research, including early-phase drug discovery. As a desirable remedy, approaches from explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are increasingly applied to shed light on the ML black box and help to rationalize predictions. Among these is the concept of counterfactuals (CFs), which are best understood as test cases with small modifications yielding opposing prediction outcomes (such as different class labels in object classification). For ML applications in medicinal chemistry, for example, compound activity predictions, CFs are particularly intuitive because these hypothetical molecules enable immediate comparisons with actual test compounds that do not require expert ML knowledge and are accessible to practicing chemists. Such comparisons often reveal structural moieties in compounds that determine their predictions and can be further investigated. Herein, we adapt and extend a recently introduced concept for the systematic generation of molecular CFs to multi-task predictions of different classes of protein kinase inhibitors, analyze CFs in detail, rationalize the origins of CF formation in multi-task modeling, and present exemplary explanations of predictions.
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.