ArticleBiology methods & protocols2024
Graph neural networks are promising for phenotypic virtual screening on cancer cell lines.
Article in Biology methods & protocols, 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.
- Identification of novel dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH) inhibitors for cancer: computational drug repurposing strategy.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
- UMAP-based clustering split for rigorous evaluation of AI models for virtual screening on cancer cell lines.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- Cross-disciplinary perspectives on the potential for artificial intelligence across chemistry.Chemical Society reviews · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is increasingly driving early drug design, offering novel approaches to virtual screening. Phenotypic virtual screening (PVS) aims to predict how cancer cell lines respond to different compounds by focusing on observable characteristics rather than specific molecular targets. Some studies have suggested that deep learning may not be the best approach for PVS. However, these studies are limited by the small number of tested molecules as well as not employing suitable performance metrics and dissimilar-molecules splits better mimicking the challenging chemical diversity of real-world screening libraries. Here we prepared 60 datasets, each containing approximately 30 000-50 000 molecules tested for their growth inhibitory activities on one of the NCI-60 cancer cell lines. We conducted multiple performance evaluations of each of the five machine learning algorithms for PVS on these 60 problem instances. To provide even a more comprehensive evaluation, we used two model validation types: the random split and the dissimilar-molecules split. Overall, about 14 440 training runs aczross datasets were carried out per algorithm. The models were primarily evaluated using hit rate, a more suitable metric in VS contexts. The results show that all models are more challenged by test molecules that are substantially different from those in the training data. In both validation types, the D-MPNN algorithm, a graph-based deep neural network, was found to be the most suitable for building predictive models for this PVS problem.
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.