MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200267496 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.10.468094

A Graph Neural Network Approach to Molecule Carcinogenicity Prediction

2021· preprint· en· W4200267496 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Fradkin, Adamo Young, Lazar Atanackovic, Brendan J. Frey, Leo J. Lee, Bo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningArtificial neural networkGraphMolecular descriptorData miningQuantitative structure–activity relationshipTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Molecular carcinogenicity is a preventable cause of cancer, however, most experimental testing of molecular compounds is an expensive and time consuming process, making high throughput experimental approaches infeasible. In recent years, there has been substantial progress in machine learning techniques for molecular property prediction. In this work, we propose a model for carcinogenicity prediction, CONCERTO, which uses a graph transformer in conjunction with a molecular fingerprint representation, trained on multi-round muta-genicity and carcinogenicity objectives. To train and validate CONCERTO, we augment the training dataset with more informative labels and utilize a larger external validation dataset. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model yields results superior to alternate approaches for molecular carcinogenicity prediction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207