Neural interaction explainable AI predicts drug response across cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized treatment selection is crucial for cancer patients due to the high variability in drug response. While actionable mutations can increasingly inform treatment decisions, most therapies still rely on population-based approaches. Here, we introduce neural interaction explainable AI (NeurixAI), an explainable and highly scalable deep learning framework that models drug-gene interactions and identifies transcriptomic patterns linked with drug response. Trained on data from 546 646 drug perturbation experiments involving 1135 drugs and molecular profiles from 476 tumors, NeurixAI accurately predicted treatment responses for 272 targeted and 30 chemotherapeutic drugs in unseen tumor samples (Spearman's rho >0.2), maintaining high performance on an external validation set. Additionally, NeurixAI identified the anticancer potential of 160 repurposed non-cancer drugs. Using explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), our framework uncovered key genes influencing drug response at the individual tumor level and revealed both known and novel mechanisms of drug resistance. These findings demonstrate the potential of integrating transcriptomics with xAI to optimize cancer treatment, enable drug repurposing, and identify new therapeutic targets.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".