ReviewiMetaOmics2025
Artificial intelligence-driven anticancer peptide discovery.
Review in iMetaOmics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mollusk-Derived Peptides at the Food-Pharma Interface: Bioactivities, Preclinical Evidence, and Development Prospects.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- De novo generation and computational screening of dual-targeting short peptide inhibitors against PBP2b and PBP2x in drug-resistant Streptococcus Pneumoniae.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Marine Bioactive Peptides for Colorectal Cancer Therapy: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Potential, and Translational Challenges.Marine drugs · 2026Review
- Aquatic-derived antimicrobial peptides and their strategically modified analogues as prospective anticancer therapeutics: a comprehensive systematic review of enhancement methodologies and mechanistic insights.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Review
- Next-Generation Anticancer Peptides: Engineering, Nanotheranostics and Clinical Translation.Nanotheranostics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer has become a major global health threat. Despite advances in modern medicine, current therapeutic strategies still face many limitations. Anticancer peptides (ACPs), due to their high selectivity, low toxicity, and multitarget effects, have gradually become a research focus in the development of novel peptide-based anticancer drugs. However, traditional screening methods are constrained by their low efficiency, high costs, and technical complexity, limiting their capacity to meet the demands of high-throughput applications. Artificial intelligence (AI) has provided new methods to address these challenges, significantly improving the efficiency and accuracy of ACP screening through the application of machine learning and deep learning algorithms. To further enhance the application of AI in ACP screening, the advantages and limitations of 68 AI models used for ACP screening are systematically summarized. AI models show considerable potential for discovering ACPs, but most of these models lack interpretability and wet-laboratory validation, which hinder the credibility and practical effectiveness of AI-based ACP screening. Therefore, we presented a comprehensive ACP screening framework based on AI models. The presented framework includes data collection and organization, feature extraction, model construction, model interpretability analysis, and experimental validation. Additionally, we integrated this screening framework with multi-omics and other biotechnologies to promote the translation of AI-selected ACPs to the clinic. The presented AI-based ACP screening framework can accelerate the ACP development, increase ACP screening efficiency, and promote clinical ACP application.
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.