The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying the hardness of bioactivity prediction tasks for transfer learning
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00160 · Paper page
Abstract
Today, machine learning methods are widely employed in drug discovery. However, the chronic lack of data continues to hamper their further development, validation, and application. Several modern strategies aim to mitigate the challenges associated with data scarcity by learning from data on related tasks. These knowledge-sharing approaches encompass transfer learning, multi-task learning, and meta-learning. A key question remaining to be answered for these approaches is about the extent to which their performance can benefit from the relatedness of available source (training) tasks, in other words, how difficult (“hard”) a test task is to a model, given the available source tasks. This study introduces a new method for quantifying and predicting the hardness of a bioactivity prediction task based on its relation to the available training tasks. The approach involves the generation of protein and chemical representations and the calculation of distances between the bioactivity prediction task and the available training tasks. In the example of meta-learning, we demonstrate that the proposed task hardness metric is inversely correlated with performance. The metric will be useful in estimating the task-specific gain in performance that can be achieved through meta-learning.
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
How many human proteoforms are there?
Aebersold, R., Agar, J. N., Amster, I. J., Baker, M. S., Bertozzi, C. R., Boja, E. S., Costello, C. E., Cravatt, B. F., Fenselau, C., Garcia, B. A., et al. (2018) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/nchembio.2576 · Cited by 907
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Fooladi, H., Hirte, S., & Kirchmair, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Kirchmair, Johannes
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2024-01-29
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 4031-4046
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11134514
- OpenAlex
- W4396854316
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- BASF
- Österreichische Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung
- Universität Wien
- Christian Doppler Forschungsgesellschaft
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- bioactivity prediction, transfer learning, meta-learning, multi-task learning, task relatedness, protein representation, chemical representation, data scarcity, drug discovery
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Humans, 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