Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40553328›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2025

R-Based Protocols to Predict Synthetic Lethal Interactions in Cancers Using Machine Learning Tools.

Anubha Dey, Manjari Kiran

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Anubha DeyDepartment of Systems and Computational Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Manjari KiranDepartment of Systems and Computational Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. manjari.hcu@uohyd.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and its subfield, machine learning (ML), there has been a transformation in healthcare research. The applications of AI/ML have expanded from retrieving useful insights from high-throughput data, categorizing patients, improving disease diagnosis, and clinical laboratory testing to treatment selection. In cancer, targeted therapy proves to be a better remedy compared to conventional chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Target therapy offers personalized treatment to cancer patients by effectively targeting the cancer cells and sparing the normal ones. The knowledge of genetic interaction (GI) has been utilized in the targeted therapy approach. Genetic interactions are the phenotypic outcomes resulting from two or more gene interactions. Genetic interactions such as synthetic lethality and synthetic viability explain the phenomenon of drug sensitivity and resistance, respectively. Several strategies have been employed for the identification of synthetic lethal pairs. The chapter primarily discusses some machine learning models that predict synthetic lethal interactions and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these classifiers. R-based step-by-step protocols have been shown for executing two ML-based synthetic lethal interaction prediction algorithms. By the end of the chapter, the readers would understand the role of genetic interactions in cancer and be able to execute machine learning models to predict synthetic lethal interactions.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyEpistasis, GeneticMachine LearningNeoplasmsSynthetic Lethal MutationsAlgorithmsHumansCancerGenetic interactionsMachine learningSynthetic lethality

Identifiers

PMID40553328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.