ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2024
A comprehensive comparison of deep learning-based compound-target interaction prediction models to unveil guiding design principles.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 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.
- Machine Learning Approaches for Compound-Target Interaction Prediction: A Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in drug development for delirium and Alzheimer's disease.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2025Review
- MCF-DTI: Multi-Scale Convolutional Local-Global Feature Fusion for Drug-Target Interaction Prediction.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The evaluation of compound-target interactions (CTIs) is at the heart of drug discovery efforts. Given the substantial time and monetary costs of classical experimental screening, significant efforts have been dedicated to develop deep learning-based models that can accurately predict CTIs. A comprehensive comparison of these models on a large, curated CTI dataset is, however, still lacking. Here, we perform an in-depth comparison of 12 state-of-the-art deep learning architectures that use different protein and compound representations. The models were selected for their reported performance and architectures. To reliably compare model performance, we curated over 300 thousand binding and non-binding CTIs and established several gold-standard datasets of varying size and information. Based on our findings, DeepConv-DTI consistently outperforms other models in CTI prediction performance across the majority of datasets. It achieves an MCC of 0.6 or higher for most of the datasets and is one of the fastest models in training and inference. These results indicate that utilizing convolutional-based windows as in DeepConv-DTI to traverse trainable embeddings is a highly effective approach for capturing informative protein features. We also observed that physicochemical embeddings of targets increased model performance. We therefore modified DeepConv-DTI to include normalized physicochemical properties, which resulted in the overall best performing model Phys-DeepConv-DTI. This work highlights how the systematic evaluation of input features of compounds and targets, as well as their corresponding neural network architectures, can serve as a roadmap for the future development of improved CTI models.Scientific contributionThis work features comprehensive CTI datasets to allow for the objective comparison and benchmarking of CTI prediction algorithms. Based on this dataset, we gained insights into which embeddings of compounds and targets and which deep learning-based algorithms perform best, providing a blueprint for the future development of CTI algorithms. Using the insights gained from this screen, we provide a novel CTI algorithm with state-of-the-art performance.
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.