Deep learning and machine learning models have shown promise in drug response prediction (DRP), yet their ability to generalize across datasets remains an open question, raising concerns about their real-world applicability. Due to the lack of standardized benchmarking approaches, model evaluations and comparisons often rely on inconsistent datasets and evaluation criteria, making it difficult to assess true predictive capabilities. In this work, we introduce a benchmarking framework for evaluating cross-dataset prediction generalization in DRP models. Our framework incorporates five publicly available drug screening datasets, seven standardized DRP models, and a scalable workflow for systematic evaluation. To assess model generalization, we introduce a set of evaluation metrics that quantify both absolute performance (e.g. predictive accuracy across datasets) and relative performance (e.g. performance drop compared to within-dataset results), enabling a more comprehensive assessment of model transferability. Our results reveal substantial performance drops when models are tested on unseen datasets, underscoring the importance of rigorous generalization assessments. While several models demonstrate relatively strong cross-dataset generalization, no single model consistently outperforms across all datasets. Furthermore, we identify CTRPv2 as the most effective source dataset for training, yielding higher generalization scores across target datasets. By sharing this standardized evaluation framework with the community, our study aims to establish a rigorous foundation for model comparison, and accelerate the development of robust DRP models for real-world applications.

Drug response prediction (DRP) methods tackle the complex task of associating the effectiveness of small molecules with the specific genetic makeup of the patient. Anti-cancer DRP is a particularly challenging task requiring costly experiments as underlying pathogenic mechanisms are broad and associated with multiple genomic pathways. The scientific community has exerted significant efforts to generate public drug screening datasets, giving a path to various machine learning models that attempt to reason over complex data space of small compounds and biological characteristics of tumors. However, the data depth is still lacking compared to application domains like computer vision or natural language processing domains, limiting current learning capabilities. To combat this issue and improves the generalizability of the DRP models, we are exploring strategies that explicitly address the imbalance in the DRP datasets. We reframe the problem as a multi-objective optimization across multiple drugs to maximize deep learning model performance. We implement this approach by constructing Multi-Objective Optimization Regularized by Loss Entropy loss function and plugging it into a Deep Learning model. We demonstrate the utility of proposed drug discovery methods and make suggestions for further potential application of the work to achieve desirable outcomes in the healthcare field.

Machine learning has made significant advancements in precision medicine, resulting in the development of various deep learning applications. For instance, in cancer drug response prediction, numerous deep learning models have been created. However, comparing these models across vast configurations of hyperparameters and data sets can be challenging. In this paper, we introduce a new scalable workflow suite that aims to answer questions that arise when comparing different models developed by different teams on similar or the same problems. We explain the problem in more detail and discuss our approach using near-exascale or exascale computers.

To enable personalized cancer treatment, machine learning models have been developed to predict drug response as a function of tumor and drug features. However, most algorithm development efforts have relied on cross-validation within a single study to assess model accuracy. While an essential first step, cross-validation within a biological data set typically provides an overly optimistic estimate of the prediction performance on independent test sets. To provide a more rigorous assessment of model generalizability between different studies, we use machine learning to analyze five publicly available cell line-based data sets: National Cancer Institute 60, ancer Therapeutics Response Portal (CTRP), Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer, Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia and Genentech Cell Line Screening Initiative (gCSI). Based on observed experimental variability across studies, we explore estimates of prediction upper bounds. We report performance results of a variety of machine learning models, with a multitasking deep neural network achieving the best cross-study generalizability. By multiple measures, models trained on CTRP yield the most accurate predictions on the remaining testing data, and gCSI is the most predictable among the cell line data sets included in this study. With these experiments and further simulations on partial data, two lessons emerge: (1) differences in viability assays can limit model generalizability across studies and (2) drug diversity, more than tumor diversity, is crucial for raising model generalizability in preclinical screening.

The drug discovery process currently employed in the pharmaceutical industry typically requires about 10 years and $2–3 billion to deliver one new drug. This is both too expensive and too slow, especially in emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. In silico methodologies need to be improved both to select better lead compounds, so as to improve the efficiency of later stages in the drug discovery protocol, and to identify those lead compounds more quickly. No known methodological approach can deliver this combination of higher quality and speed. Here, we describe an Integrated Modeling PipEline for COVID Cure by Assessing Better LEads (IMPECCABLE) that employs multiple methodological innovations to overcome this fundamental limitation. We also describe the computational framework that we have developed to support these innovations at scale, and characterize the performance of this framework in terms of throughput, peak performance, and scientific results. We show that individual workflow components deliver 100 × to 1000 × improvement over traditional methods, and that the integration of methods, supported by scalable infrastructure, speeds up drug discovery by orders of magnitudes. IMPECCABLE has screened ∼ 1011 ligands and has been used to discover a promising drug candidate. These capabilities have been used by the US DOE National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory and the EU Centre of Excellence in Computational Biomedicine.

BACKGROUND: Motivated by the size and availability of cell line drug sensitivity data, researchers have been developing machine learning (ML) models for predicting drug response to advance cancer treatment. As drug sensitivity studies continue generating drug response data, a common question is whether the generalization performance of existing prediction models can be further improved with more training data. METHODS: We utilize empirical learning curves for evaluating and comparing the data scaling properties of two neural networks (NNs) and two gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) models trained on four cell line drug screening datasets. The learning curves are accurately fitted to a power law model, providing a framework for assessing the data scaling behavior of these models. RESULTS: The curves demonstrate that no single model dominates in terms of prediction performance across all datasets and training sizes, thus suggesting that the actual shape of these curves depends on the unique pair of an ML model and a dataset. The multi-input NN (mNN), in which gene expressions of cancer cells and molecular drug descriptors are input into separate subnetworks, outperforms a single-input NN (sNN), where the cell and drug features are concatenated for the input layer. In contrast, a GBDT with hyperparameter tuning exhibits superior performance as compared with both NNs at the lower range of training set sizes for two of the tested datasets, whereas the mNN consistently performs better at the higher range of training sizes. Moreover, the trajectory of the curves suggests that increasing the sample size is expected to further improve prediction scores of both NNs. These observations demonstrate the benefit of using learning curves to evaluate prediction models, providing a broader perspective on the overall data scaling characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: A fitted power law learning curve provides a forward-looking metric for analyzing prediction performance and can serve as a co-design tool to guide experimental biologists and computational scientists in the design of future experiments in prospective research studies.