Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40796603›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Adjusted imbalance ratio leads to effective AI-based drug discovery against infectious disease.

Ons Masmoudi, Afef Abdelkrim, Emna Harigua-Souiai

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Ons MasmoudiLaboratory of Molecular Epidemiology and Experimental Pathology-LR16IPT04, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, Université de Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
Afef AbdelkrimResearch Laboratory Smart Electricity & ICT, SE&ICT Lab., LR18ES44, National Engineering School of Carthage, University of Carthage, Charguia, 2035, Tunisia.
Emna Harigua-SouiaiLaboratory of Molecular Epidemiology and Experimental Pathology-LR16IPT04, Institut Pasteur de Tunis, Université de Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia. emna.harigua@pasteur.utm.tn.

Funding

Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique LR16IPT04European Commission DCI-PANAF/2020/420-028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The success of AI-based pipelines in Drug Discovery (DD) heavily depends on three components: the dataset (size, content, imbalance ratio), the encoding system and the predictive model. This study focuses on optimizing these elements to develop robust predictive models for the biological activity of chemical molecules. We trained five machine learning and six deep learning algorithms to predict the anti-pathogen activity of chemical compounds, derived from PubChem Bioassays targeting four infectious diseases. The datasets exhibited a significant imbalance towards the inactive class. To address this, we implemented a K-ratio random undersampling approach (K-RUS) to determine optimal imbalance ratios (IRs), and compared them to conventional resampling approaches. Across all simulations, a moderate IR (1:10) significantly enhanced models' performance. Through external validation, we assessed the generalization power of the top-performing models and observed optimal balance between true positive and false positive rates with the 10-RUS configuration. Furthermore, we investigated the chemical similarity between active and inactive classes, which revealed the underlying mechanisms of misclassification. Our findings emphasized the need for optimizing imbalance ratios and leveraging chemical diversity to improve AI-driven DD against infectious diseases.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesDrug DiscoveryAlgorithmsDeep LearningHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID40796603
PMCPMC12343955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.