Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neural Computing in Cancer Drug Development: Predicting Mechanism of Action

Weinstein, John N., Kohn, Kurt W., Grever, Michael R., Viswanadhan, Vellarkad N., Rubinstein, Lawrence V., Monks, Anne P., Scudiero, Dominic A., Welch, Lester, Koutsoukos, Antonis D., Chiausa, August J., Paull, Kenneth D.·1992·Science

Abstract

Described here are neural networks capable of predicting a drug's mechanism of action from its pattern of activity against a panel of 60 malignant cell lines in the National Cancer Institute's drug screening program. Given six possible classes of mechanism, the network misses the correct category for only 12 out of 141 agents (8.5 percent), whereas linear discriminant analysis, a standard statistical technique, misses 20 out of 141 (14.2 percent). The success of the neural net indicates several things. (i) The cell line response patterns are rich in information about mechanism. (ii) Appropriately designed neural networks can make effective use of that information. (iii) Trained networks can be used to classify prospectively the more than 10,000 agents per year tested by the screening program. Related networks, in combination with classical statistical tools, will help in a variety of ways to move new anticancer agents through the pipeline from in vitro studies to clinical application.

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 · 10.1126/science.1411538

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Weinstein, J. N., Kohn, K. W., Grever, M. R., Viswanadhan, V. N., Rubinstein, L. V., Monks, A. P., Scudiero, D. A., Welch, L., Koutsoukos, A. D., Chiausa, A. J., & Paull, K. D.
Venue
Science
Published
1992-10-16
Volume
258
Issue
5081
Pages
447-451
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2083888914
Cited by
312
References
3
FWCI
18.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.