MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A008: AI-Predict: Artificial intelligence-mediated drug synergy prediction and validation in cancer models

2025· article· en· W4412163807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alicia Pliego, Chantal Pauli, Lara Planas‐Paz, Michael Krauthammer, Amina Mollaysa, Kyriakos Schwarz, Sarah Kollar, Ahmed Allam

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerDrugCancer drugsArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer sciencePharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: In precision oncology, monotherapies frequently result in resistance and disease relapse, emphasizing the need for rational drug combinations. Identifying effective combinations remains challenging due to the immense combinatorial space, tumor-specific molecular heterogeneity, and the limited scalability of experimental screening. Drug repurposing offers a promising and cost-effective alternative by leveraging compounds with known safety profiles. In recent years, machine learning approaches have been proposed to predict drug synergy, yet many remain limited by reliance on static datasets, batch effects, and minimal biological validation. Methods: We present a graph neural network (GNN)-based model that predicts drug synergy using molecular structure and gene expression data from cancer cell lines. Drugs are represented as molecular graphs and processed through GATv2 layers to capture structural relationships. Cell lines are encoded via attention-based embeddings of 908 landmark genes, capturing transcriptomic context. The model outputs the probability of synergy for each drug pair–cell line triplet and is trained using binary cross-entropy with L2 regularization. For in vitro validation, human cancer cell lines (ovarian UWB1.289, renal 786-0, and breast BT-549) were cultured under standard conditions and routinely tested for Mycoplasma contamination. Results: Our model was trained on the DrugComb v1.5 dataset (>1.4M triplets), annotated with four synergy scores (Loewe, Bliss, HSA, ZIP) and three consensus-based labels (Majority-2/3/4). We benchmarked performance against classical ML models, DeepSynergy, DeepDDS, and a GNN baseline with standard GAT layers. Across seven datasets, our model consistently outperformed all baselines, with gains of 3–18% in AUPR and 3–6% in AUC. It also maintained strong performance in generalization tasks involving unseen drugs and cell lines. To confirm biological relevance, we tested predicted drug pairs in vitro across three human cancer cell lines: ovarian (UWB1.289), renal (786-0), and breast (BT-549). We selected combinations with high predicted synergy, high antagonism, and low interaction probability. Each pair was tested under different exposure times (72h–8 days) and six-point dose-response curves based on known drug properties. Synergistic pairs showed enhanced cytotoxicity, while antagonistic combinations resulted in reduced efficacy. Neutral predictions aligned with additive effects. Context-dependent differences further highlighted the relevance of transcriptomic integration. Conclusion: Our GNN-based model demonstrates strong predictive performance for drug synergy and generalizes across biological contexts. In vitro experiments validate its translational utility, supporting its application in drug repurposing and personalized combination therapy. Future directions include testing in patient-derived models and leveraging experimental feedback to refine predictions through active learning. Citation Format: Alicia Pliego, Chantal Pauli, Lara Planas-Paz, Michael Krauthammer, Amina Mollaysa, Kyriakos Schwarz, Sarah Kollar, Ahmed Allam. AI-Predict: Artificial intelligence-mediated drug synergy prediction and validation in cancer models [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; 2025 Jul 10-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(13_Suppl):Abstract nr A008.

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)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207