ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Trust me if you can: a survey on reliability and interpretability of machine learning approaches for drug sensitivity prediction in cancer.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feature Importance Bias and Competing Risks: Methodological Concerns in Ensemble Models for Diabetic Kidney Disease.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- The Tsetlin Machine: A "Third Way" in QSAR Modeling.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Critical evaluation of drug response prediction models with DrEval.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Monotherapy cancer drug-blind response prediction is limited to intraclass generalization.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Addressing biases and limitations in feature attribution for circRNA modification profiling.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Revisiting AI Interpretability in Precision Oncology: Why Predictive Accuracy Does Not Ensure Stable Feature Importance.Cancers · 2026Article
- Leveraging uncertainty estimates for drug response prediction in cancer cell lines.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Whole genome characterization of patient-derived lung cancer organoids.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- PSO-FeatureFusion: a general framework for fusing heterogeneous features via particle swarm optimization.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the ever-increasing number of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, mitigating risks associated with their use has become one of the most urgent scientific and societal issues. To this end, the European Union passed the EU AI Act, proposing solution strategies that can be summarized under the umbrella term trustworthiness. In anti-cancer drug sensitivity prediction, machine learning (ML) methods are developed for application in medical decision support systems, which require an extraordinary level of trustworthiness. This review offers an overview of the ML landscape of methods for anti-cancer drug sensitivity prediction, including a brief introduction to the four major ML realms (supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement learning). In particular, we address the question to what extent trustworthiness-related properties, more specifically, interpretability and reliability, have been incorporated into anti-cancer drug sensitivity prediction methods over the previous decade. In total, we analyzed 36 papers with approaches for anti-cancer drug sensitivity prediction. Our results indicate that the need for reliability has hardly been addressed so far. Interpretability, on the other hand, has often been considered for model development. However, the concept is rather used intuitively, lacking clear definitions. Thus, we propose an easily extensible taxonomy for interpretability, unifying all prevalent connotations explicitly or implicitly used within the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.