Interpretable deep learning architectures for improving drug response prediction performance: myth or reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Interpretable deep learning (DL) models that can provide biological insights, in addition to accurate predictions, are of great interest to the biomedical community. Recently, interpretable DL models that incorporate signaling pathways have been proposed for drug response prediction (DRP). While these models improve interpretability, it is unclear whether this comes at the cost of less accurate DRPs, or a prediction improvement can also be obtained. RESULTS: We comprehensively and systematically assessed four state-of-the-art interpretable DL models using three pathway collections to assess their ability in making accurate predictions on unseen samples from the same dataset, as well as their generalizability to an independent dataset. Our results showed that models that explicitly incorporate pathway information in the form of a latent layer perform worse compared to models that incorporate this information implicitly. However, in most evaluation setups, the best performance was achieved using a black-box multilayer perceptron, and the performance of a random forests baseline was comparable to those of the interpretable models. Replacing the signaling pathways with randomly generated pathways showed a comparable performance for the majority of the models. Finally, the performance of all models deteriorated when applied to an independent dataset. These results highlight the importance of systematic evaluation of newly proposed models using carefully selected baselines. We provide different evaluation setups and baseline models that can be used to achieve this goal. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Implemented models and datasets are provided at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7787178 and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7101665, respectively.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".