Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40681561›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

High-throughput behavioral screening in Caenorhabditis elegans using machine learning for drug repurposing.

Antonio García-Garví, Antonio-José Sánchez-Salmerón

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
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.

Antonio García-GarvíInstituto de Automática e Informática Industrial, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera S/N, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Antonio-José Sánchez-SalmerónInstituto de Automática e Informática Industrial, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera S/N, 46022, Valencia, Spain. asanchez@isa.upv.es.

Funding

EU-FEDER Comunitat Valenciana 2014-2020 IDIFEDER/2018/025Ministerio de Universidades (Spain) FPU20/02639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caenorhabditis elegans is a widely used animal model for researching new disease treatments. In recent years, automated methods have been developed to extract mobility phenotypes and analyse, using statistical methods, whether there are differences between control strains and disease model strains. However, these methods present certain limitations in detecting subtle and non-linear patterns. In this study, we propose a high-throughput screening method based on machine learning, using classifiers that provide a recovery percentage as a measure of treatment effect. We evaluate two main approaches: traditional machine learning models based on behavioral features extracted from the worm's skeleton using Tierpsy Tracker, and deep neural networks that directly analyse video sequences. The results indicate that a Random Forest classifier trained with features extracted by Tierpsy Tracker offers higher accuracy and explainability, making it more suitable than deep learning models for drug testing experiments. Finally, to assess the applicability of our method, we processed data from a published drug repurposing study on unc-80 mutants based on statistical methods. The results highlight the potential of machine learning models to enhance automated phenotypic screening in animal models, providing a more robust and quantitative evaluation of treatment effects by considering more complex and subtle patterns.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalCaenorhabditis elegansDrug RepositioningHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysMachine LearningAnimalsNeural Networks, ComputerC. elegansComputational ethologyDisease modelsDrug screeningMachine learningPhenotypic screen

Identifiers

PMID40681561
PMCPMC12274433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.