ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2025
Understanding the sources of performance in deep drug response models reveals insights and improvements.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2025. 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.
- TMEDRP: decoding tumor-intrinsic and microenvironmental signatures for clinical drug response prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Tissue-aware elastic net decomposition reveals shared and lineage-specific drug response biomarkers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Monotherapy cancer drug-blind response prediction is limited to intraclass generalization.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Benchmarking community drug response prediction models: datasets, models, tools, and metrics for cross-dataset generalization analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationAnti-cancer drug response prediction (DRP) using cancer cell lines (CLs) is crucial in stratified medicine and drug discovery. Recently, new deep learning models for DRP have improved performance over their predecessors. However, different models use different input data types and architectures making it hard to find the source of these improvements. Here we consider published DRP models that report state-of-the-art performance predicting continuous response values. These models take chemical structures of drugs and omics profiles of CLs as input.
resultsBy experimenting with these models and comparing with our simple baselines, we show that no performance comes from drug features, instead, performance is due to the transcriptomics CL profiles. Furthermore, we show that, depending on the testing type, much of the current reported performance is a property of the training target values. We address these limitations by creating BinaryET and BinaryCB that predict binary drug response values, guided by the hypothesis that this reduces the noise in the drug efficacy data. Thus, better aligning them with biochemistry that can be learnt from the input data. BinaryCB leverages a chemical foundation model, while BinaryET is trained from scratch using a transformer-type architecture. We show that these models learn useful chemical drug features, which is the first time this has been demonstrated for multiple testing types to our knowledge. We further show binarizing the drug response values causes the models to learn useful chemical drug features. We also show that BinaryET improves performance over BinaryCB, and the published models that report state-of-the-art performance. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Code is available from https://github.com/Nik-BB/Understanding_DRP_models.
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.