Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 559

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward more realistic drug-target interaction predictions

Open access
Pahikkala, T., Airola, A., Pietila, S., Shakyawar, S., Szwajda, A., Tang, J., Aittokallio, T.·2015·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Abstract

A number of supervised machine learning models have recently been introduced for the prediction of drug-target interactions based on chemical structure and genomic sequence information. Although these models could offer improved means for many network pharmacology applications, such as repositioning of drugs for new therapeutic uses, the prediction models are often being constructed and evaluated under overly simplified settings that do not reflect the real-life problem in practical applications. Using quantitative drug-target bioactivity assays for kinase inhibitors, as well as a popular benchmarking data set of binary drug-target interactions for enzyme, ion channel, nuclear receptor and G protein-coupled receptor targets, we illustrate here the effects of four factors that may lead to dramatic differences in the prediction results: (i) problem formulation (standard binary classification or more realistic regression formulation), (ii) evaluation data set (drug and target families in the application use case), (iii) evaluation procedure (simple or nested cross-validation) and (iv) experimental setting (whether training and test sets share common drugs and targets, only drugs or targets or neither). Each of these factors should be taken into consideration to avoid reporting overoptimistic drug-target interaction prediction results. We also suggest guidelines on how to make the supervised drug-target interaction prediction studies more realistic in terms of such model formulations and evaluation setups that better address the inherent complexity of the prediction task in the practical applications, as well as novel benchmarking data sets that capture the continuous nature of the drug-target interactions for kinase inhibitors.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bib/bbu010

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

1 retracted

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 559

Metadata

Authors
Pahikkala, T., Airola, A., Pietila, S., Shakyawar, S., Szwajda, A., Tang, J., & Aittokallio, T.
Venue
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Published
2014-04-09
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
325-337
ISSN
  • 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4054
OpenAlex
W2109991441
Cited by
559
References
46
FWCI
18.76
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward more realistic drug-target interaction predictions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bib/bbu010
The paper
Pahikkala, T., Airola, A., Pietila, S., Shakyawar, S., Szwajda, A., Tang, J., & Aittokallio, T. (2015). Toward more realistic drug-target interaction predictions. Briefings in Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbu010

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.