Cited by 584Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

Large-scale comparison of machine learning methods for drug target prediction on ChEMBL

Open access
Mayr, Andreas, Klambauer, Günter, Unterthiner, Thomas, Steijaert, Marvin, Wegner, Jörg K., Ceulemans, Hugo, Clevert, Djork-Arné, Hochreiter, Sepp·2018·Chemical Science

Abstract

The to date largest comparative study of nine state-of-the-art drug target prediction methods finds that deep learning outperforms all other competitors. The results are based on a benchmark of 1300 assays and half a million compounds.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c8sc00148k

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A nested cluster-cross validation strategy has been used to show that DNNs outperform other machine learning methods.

    “A nested cluster-cross validation strategy has also been used to show that DNNs outperform these other machine learning methods18.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Gómez-Bombarelli R. Aguilera-Iparraguirre J. Hirzel T. D. Duvenaud D. Maclaurin D. Blood-Forsythe M. A. Chae H. S. Einzinger M. Ha D.-G. Wu T. Nat. Mater. 2016 15 1120 27500805
  2. Keiser M. J. and Hert J., Chemogenomics, Humana Press, 2009, pp. 195–205.
  3. LeCun Y. Bottou L. Bengio Y. Haffner P. Proc. IEEE 1998 86 2278 2324
  4. Duvenaud D. K., Maclaurin D., Iparraguirre J., Bombarell R., Hirzel T., Aspuru-Guzik A. and Adams R. P., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015, pp. 2224–2232.
  5. Sutskever I., Vinyals O. and Le Q. V., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, 2014, pp. 3104–3112.
  6. Graves A. and Jaitly N., Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, 2014, pp. II-1764–II-1772.
  7. Hochreiter S., MSc thesis, Institut für Informatik, Lehrstuhl Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Brauer, Technische Universität München, 1991.
  8. Weininger D. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1988 28 31 36 8768771
  9. Cireşan D. C., Meier U., Gambardella L. M. and Schmidhuber J., Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, Springer, 2012, pp. 581–598.
  10. Nair V. and Hinton G. E., Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2010, pp. 807–814.
  11. Glorot X., Bordes A. and Bengio Y., AISTATS, 2011, pp. 315–323.
  12. Klambauer G., Unterthiner T., Mayr A. and Hochreiter S., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, 2017, pp. 972–981.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mayr, A., Klambauer, G., Unterthiner, T., Steijaert, M., Wegner, J. K., Ceulemans, H., Clevert, D.-A., & Hochreiter, S.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
  • Open Analytics NV
  • Janssen (Belgium) (BE)
  • Bayer (Germany) (DE)
Venue
Chemical Science
Published
2018
Volume
9
Issue
24
Pages
5441-5451
ISSN
  • 2041-6520 (ISSN-L)
  • 2041-6539
OpenAlex
W2806547269
Cited by
584
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 13
FWCI
43.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chemical Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (ExCAPE/671555)
  • Austrian Science Fund (P 28660-N31)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
drug target prediction, ChEMBL, method comparison, deep learning, machine learning, drug discovery

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