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 accessAbstract
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.
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
1 retracted
Predicting new molecular targets for rhein using network pharmacology
Zhang, A., Sun, H. J., Yang, B., & Wang, X. (2012) · BMC Systems Biology · doi:10.1186/1752-0509-6-20 · Cited by 47
RetractedPan, S. J., & Yang, Q. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2009.191 · Cited by 23,387
Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery
Hopkins, A. L. (2008) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/nchembio.118 · Cited by 4,622
ChEMBL: 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
Hawkins, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci0342472 · Cited by 2,522
Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection
Varma, S., & Simon, R. (2006) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-91 · Cited by 2,485 · cited 2×
“In addition to the aforementioned CV issues, selection of hyper-parameters, such as the regularization [20–23] that if CV estimate is used as a parameter selection tool, the same estimate is no longer reliable for estimating the prediction performance of the model trained with the optimal…”
Comprehensive analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity
Davis, M. I., Hunt, J. P., Herrgard, S., Ciceri, P., Wodicka, L. M., Pallares, G., Hocker, M., Treiber, D. K., & Zarrinkar, P. P. (2011) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1990 · Cited by 2,409
Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs
Keiser, M. J., Setola, V., Irwin, J. J., Laggner, C., Abbas, A. I., Hufeisen, S. J., Jensen, N. H., Kuijer, M. B., Matos, R. C., Tran, T. B., et al. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08506 · Cited by 1,667
Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data
Ambroise, C., & McLachlan, G. J. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.102102699 · Cited by 1,480
Prediction of drug–target interaction networks from the integration of chemical and genomic spaces
Yamanishi, Y., Araki, M., Gutteridge, A., Honda, W., & Kanehisa, M. (2008) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn162 · Cited by 1,147
Cited by
Counting on natural products for drug design
Rodrigues, T., Reker, D., Schneider, P., & Schneider, G. (2016) · Nature Chemistry · doi:10.1038/nchem.2479 · Cited by 1,250
Drug–target interaction prediction: databases, web servers and computational models
Chen, X., Yan, C. C., Zhang, X., Zhang, X., Dai, F., Yin, J., & Zhang, Y. (2016) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbv066 · Cited by 658
Machine learning approaches and databases for prediction of drug–target interaction: a survey paper
Bagherian, M., Sabeti, E., Wang, K., Sartor, M. A., Nikolovska-Coleska, Z., & Najarian, K. (2021) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbz157 · Cited by 429
Neighborhood Regularized Logistic Matrix Factorization for Drug-Target Interaction Prediction
Liu, Y., Wu, M., Miao, C., Zhao, P., & Li, X.-L. (2016) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004760 · Cited by 391
Drug–target affinity prediction using graph neural network and contact maps
Jiang, M., Li, Z., Zhang, S., Wang, S., Wang, X., Yuan, Q., & Wei, Z. (2020) · RSC Advances · doi:10.1039/d0ra02297g · Cited by 372
Metadata
- Authors
- Pahikkala, T., Airola, A., Pietila, S., Shakyawar, S., Szwajda, A., Tang, J., & Aittokallio, T.
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.