The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DeepTox: Toxicity Prediction using Deep Learning
Open accessAbstract
The Tox21 Data Challenge has been the largest effort of the scientific community to compare computational methods for toxicity prediction. This challenge comprised 12,000 environmental chemicals and drugs which were measured for 12 different toxic effects by specifically designed assays. We participated in this challenge to assess the performance of Deep Learning in computational toxicity prediction. Deep Learning has already revolutionized image processing, speech recognition, and language understanding but has not yet been applied to computational toxicity. Deep Learning is founded on novel algorithms and architectures for artificial neural networks together with the recent availability of very fast computers and massive datasets. It discovers multiple levels of distributed representations of the input, with higher levels representing more abstract concepts. We hypothesized that the construction of a hierarchy of chemical features gives Deep Learning the edge over other toxicity prediction methods. Furthermore, Deep Learning naturally enables multi-task learning, that is, learning of all toxic effects in one neural network and thereby learning of highly informative chemical features. In order to utilize Deep Learning for toxicity prediction, we have developed the DeepTox pipeline. First, DeepTox normalizes the chemical representations of the compounds. Then it computes a large number of chemical descriptors that are used as input to machine learning methods. In its next step, DeepTox trains models, evaluates them, and combines the best of them to ensembles. Finally, DeepTox predicts the toxicity of new compounds. In the Tox21 Data Challenge, DeepTox had the highest performance of all computational methods winning the grand challenge, the nuclear receptor panel, the stress response panel, and six single assays (teams “Bioinf@JKU”). We found that Deep Learning excelled in toxicity prediction and outperformed many other computational approaches like naive Bayes, support vector machines, and random forests.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Machine learning has also been implemented to assess the toxicity of molecules, for instance, using DeepTox, a DL-based model for evaluating the toxic effects of compounds based on a dataset containing many drug molecules [19].”
From The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications (2020) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“When working on new test sets, CNN usually predicts with high accuracy [88].”
From Machine Learning Based Toxicity Prediction: From Chemical Structural Description to Transcriptome Analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [88]
In the citing paper
“Using CNN to automatically construct abstract chemical fragments, the deep learning model showed very high performance in toxicity prediction based on high-throughput data, with an average area under the curve (AUC) of 0.846 [88].”
From Machine Learning Based Toxicity Prediction: From Chemical Structural Description to Transcriptome Analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [88]
In the citing paper
“After extensive data training, CNN can identify those substructure or molecular fragments that might make a molecule toxic.”
From Machine Learning Based Toxicity Prediction: From Chemical Structural Description to Transcriptome Analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [88]
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
(2014) · Cited by 33,419
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i01 · Cited by 19,927
Deep learning in neural networks: an overview
Schmidhuber, J. (2015) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003 · Cited by 18,570
Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks
Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. V. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.3215 · Cited by 17,766
(2010) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 13,995
Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks
Graves, A., Mohamed, A.-R., & Hinton, G. (2013) · 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2013.6638947 · Cited by 8,893
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Svetnik, 2003, Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 43, 1947, 10.1021/ci034160g · DOI
- Unterthiner, 2014, Deep learning as an opportunity in virtual screening
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fast and Accurate Deep Network Learning by Exponential Linear Units (ELUs)
Clevert, D.-A., Unterthiner, T., & Hochreiter, S. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.07289 · Cited by 4,513
Self-citationProTox-II: a webserver for the prediction of toxicity of chemicals
Banerjee, P., Eckert, A. P., Schrey, A. K., & Preißner, R. (2018) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gky318 · Cited by 3,312
Applications of machine learning in drug discovery and development
Vamathevan, J., Clark, D., Czodrowski, P., Dunham, I., Ferran, E., Lee, G., Li, B., Madabhushi, A., Shah, P., Spitzer, M., et al. (2019) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/s41573-019-0024-5 · Cited by 3,228
Convolutional Networks on Graphs for Learning Molecular Fingerprints
Duvenaud, D., Maclaurin, D., Aguilera-Iparraguirre, J., Gómez-Bombarelli, R., Hirzel, T., Aspuru-Guzik, A., & Adams, R. P. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1509.09292 · Cited by 2,628
Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine
Ching, T., Himmelstein, D. S., Beaulieu-Jones, B. K., Kalinin, A. A., Do, B. T., Way, G. P., Ferrero, E., Agapow, P.-M., Zietz, M., Hoffman, M. M., et al. (2018) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0387 · Cited by 2,310
Metadata
- Authors
- Mayr, A., Klambauer, G., Unterthiner, T., & Hochreiter, S.
- Affiliations
- Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Hochreiter, Sepp
- Venue
- Frontiers in Environmental Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-02-02
- Volume
- 3
- ISSN
- 2296-665X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2189911347
- Cited by
- 1,081
- References
- 89
- Citations by year
- 2026: 148 · 2025: 124 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 124 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 143 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 108 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 9
- FWCI
- 67.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Environmental Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- ChemBioBridge
- European Commission
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Keywords
- toxicity prediction, deep learning, multi-task learning, molecular descriptors, ensemble learning, environmental chemicals, drug toxicity
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
