A graph neural network approach for molecule carcinogenicity prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Molecular carcinogenicity is a preventable cause of cancer, but systematically identifying carcinogenic compounds, which involves performing experiments on animal models, is expensive, time consuming and low throughput. As a result, carcinogenicity information is limited and building data-driven models with good prediction accuracy remains a major challenge. RESULTS: In this work, we propose CONCERTO, a deep learning model that uses a graph transformer in conjunction with a molecular fingerprint representation for carcinogenicity prediction from molecular structure. Special efforts have been made to overcome the data size constraint, such as multi-round pre-training on related but lower quality mutagenicity data, and transfer learning from a large self-supervised model. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model performs well and can generalize to external validation sets. CONCERTO could be useful for guiding future carcinogenicity experiments and provide insight into the molecular basis of carcinogenicity. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code and data underlying this article are available on github at https://github.com/bowang-lab/CONCERTO.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".