Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42018603›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Monotherapy cancer drug-blind response prediction is limited to intraclass generalization.

William G Herbert, Nicholas Chia, Paul A Jensen, Marina R S Walther-Antonio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

William G HerbertGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0006-5834-5353
Nicholas ChiaComputing, Environment, and Life Sciences, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois, United States of America.
Paul A JensenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Marina R S Walther-AntonioDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monotherapy cancer drug response prediction (DRP) models predict the response of a cell line to a given drug. Analyzing these models' performance includes assessing their ability to predict the response of cell lines to new drugs, i.e., drugs that are not in the training set. Drug-blind prediction displays greatly diminished performance or outright failure across a wide range of model architectures and different large pharmacogenomic datasets. Drug-blind failure is hypothesized to be caused by the relatively limited set of drugs present in these datasets. The time and cost associated with further cell line experiments is significant, and it is impossible to predict beforehand how much data would be enough to overcome drug-blind failure. We must first define how current data contributes to drug-blind failure before attempting to remedy drug-blind failure with further data collection. In this work, we quantify the extent to which drug-blind generalizability relies on mechanistic overlap of drugs between training and testing splits. We first identify that the majority of mixed set DRP model performance can be attributed to drug overfitting, likely inhibiting generalization and preventing accurate analysis. Then, by specifically probing the drug-blind ability of models, we reveal the sources of generalizable drug features are confined to shared mechanisms of action and related pathways. Furthermore, we observed that, for certain mechanisms, we can significantly improve performance by limiting the training of models to a single mechanism compared to training on all drugs simultaneously. Across multiple different model architectures examined in this paper, we observe that drug-blind performance is a poor benchmark for DRP as it does not describe model behavior, it describes dataset behavior. Our investigation displays that these deep learning models trained on large, monotherapy cell line panels can more accurately describe mechanism of action of drugs rather than their advertised connection to broader cancer biology.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsCell Line, TumorComputational BiologyHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID42018603
PMCPMC13128123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.