The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Deep Learning With Multiple Machine Learning Methods and Metrics Using Diverse Drug Discovery Data Sets
Open accessAbstract
Machine learning methods have been applied to many data sets in pharmaceutical research for several decades. The relative ease and availability of fingerprint type molecular descriptors paired with Bayesian methods resulted in the widespread use of this approach for a diverse array of end points relevant to drug discovery. Deep learning is the latest machine learning algorithm attracting attention for many of pharmaceutical applications from docking to virtual screening. Deep learning is based on an artificial neural network with multiple hidden layers and has found considerable traction for many artificial intelligence applications. We have previously suggested the need for a comparison of different machine learning methods with deep learning across an array of varying data sets that is applicable to pharmaceutical research. End points relevant to pharmaceutical research include absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADME/Tox) properties, as well as activity against pathogens and drug discovery data sets. In this study, we have used data sets for solubility, probe-likeness, hERG, KCNQ1, bubonic plague, Chagas, tuberculosis, and malaria to compare different machine learning methods using FCFP6 fingerprints. These data sets represent whole cell screens, individual proteins, physicochemical properties as well as a data set with a complex end point. Our aim was to assess whether deep learning offered any improvement in testing when assessed using an array of metrics including AUC, F1 score, Cohen's kappa, Matthews correlation coefficient and others. Based on ranked normalized scores for the metrics or data sets Deep Neural Networks (DNN) ranked higher than SVM, which in turn was ranked higher than all the other machine learning methods. Visualizing these properties for training and test sets using radar type plots indicates when models are inferior or perhaps over trained. These results also suggest the need for assessing deep learning further using multiple metrics with much larger scale comparisons, prospective testing as well as assessment of different fingerprints and DNN architectures beyond those used.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199 · Cited by 40,918
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. (2001) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(00)00129-0 · Cited by 18,139
PubChem Substance and Compound databases
Kim, S., Thiessen, P. A., Bolton, E. E., Chen, J., Fu, G., Gindulyte, A., Han, L., He, J., He, S., Shoemaker, B. A., et al. (2016) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkv951 · Cited by 5,436
Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme
Matthews, B. W. (1975) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure · doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 · Cited by 5,399 · cited 1×
“In this study, several traditional measurements of model performance were used, including recall, precision, F1-Score, accuracy, ROC curve and the area under it (AUC), Cohen’s Kappa 103, 104 , and the Matthews correlation 105 .”
MethodChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery
Gaulton, A., Bellis, L. J., Bento, A. P., Chambers, J., Davies, M., Hersey, A., Light, Y., McGlinchey, S., Michalovich, D., Al-Lazikani, B., et al. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkr777 · Cited by 4,382
MoleculeNet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning
Wu, Z., Ramsundar, B., Feinberg, E. N., Gomes, J., Geniesse, C., Pappu, A. S., Leswing, K., & Pande, V. (2018) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/c7sc02664a · Cited by 3,107
Deep learning for computational biology
Angermueller, C., Pärnamaa, T., Parts, L., & Stegle, O. (2016) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.15252/msb.20156651 · Cited by 1,473
Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships
Ma, J., Sheridan, R. P., Liaw, A., Dahl, G. E., & Svetnik, V. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci500747n · Cited by 1,159
DeepTox: toxicity prediction using deep learning
Mayr, A., Klambauer, G., Unterthiner, T., & Hochreiter, S. (2016) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2015.00080 · Cited by 1,081
Cited by
Rethinking drug design in the artificial intelligence era
Schneider, P., Walters, W. P., Plowright, A. T., Sieroka, N., Listgarten, J., Goodnow, R. A., Fisher, J., Jansen, J. M., Duca, J. S., Rush, T. S., et al. (2020) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/s41573-019-0050-3 · Cited by 894
Exploiting machine learning for end-to-end drug discovery and development
Ekins, S., Puhl, A. C., Zorn, K. M., Lane, T. R., Russo, D. P., Klein, J. J., Hickey, A. J., & Clark, A. M. (2019) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/s41563-019-0338-z · Cited by 578
Self-citationMater, A. C., & Coote, M. L. (2019) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00266 · Cited by 565
NPClassifier: A Deep Neural Network-Based Structural Classification Tool for Natural Products
Kim, H. W., Wang, M., Leber, C. A., Nothias, L.-F., Reher, R., Kang, K. B., van der Hooft, J. J. J., Dorrestein, P. C., Gerwick, W. H., & Cottrell, G. W. (2021) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/acs.jnatprod.1c00399 · Cited by 551
Machine Learning Methods in Drug Discovery
Patel, L., Shukla, T., Huang, X., Ussery, D. W., & Wang, S. (2020) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules25225277 · Cited by 460
Research and application of machine learning for additive manufacturing
Qin, J., Hu, F., Liu, Y., Witherell, P., Wang, C. C. L., Rosen, D. W., Simpson, T. W., Lu, Y., & Tang, Q. (2022) · Additive Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.addma.2022.102691 · Cited by 391
Jarada, T. N., Rokne, J. G., & Alhajj, R. (2020) · Journal of Cheminformatics · doi:10.1186/s13321-020-00450-7 · Cited by 384
Bailly, A., Blanc, C., Francis, É., Guillotin, T., Jamal, F., Wakim, B., & Roy, P. (2022) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106504 · Cited by 252
Comparing Multiple Machine Learning Algorithms and Metrics for Estrogen Receptor Binding Prediction
Russo, D. P., Zorn, K. M., Clark, A. M., Zhu, H., & Ekins, S. (2018) · Molecular Pharmaceutics · doi:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00546 · Cited by 152
Self-citationArtificial intelligence facilitates drug design in the big data era
Wang, L., Ding, J., Pan, L., Cao, D., Jiang, H., & Ding, X. (2019) · Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems · doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2019.103850 · Cited by 80
Verkhivker, G. M., Agajanian, S., Hu, G., & Tao, P. (2020) · Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences · doi:10.3389/fmolb.2020.00136 · Cited by 76
Ekert, J. E., Deakyne, J., Pribul-Allen, P., Terry, R., Schofield, C., Jeong, C. G., Storey, J., Mohamet, L., Francis, J., Naidoo, A., et al. (2020) · SLAS DISCOVERY · doi:10.1177/2472555220923332 · Cited by 68
Saady, M., Eissa, M., Yacoub, A. S., Hamed, A. B., & Azzazy, H. M. E.-S. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103066 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Korotcov, A., Tkachenko, V., Russo, D. P., & Ekins, S.
- Venue
- Molecular Pharmaceutics
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2017-11-13
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 4462-4475
- ISSN
- 1543-8384 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-8392
- OpenAlex
- W2766761250
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 21.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
