↓ Skip to main content

Translating Clinical Findings into Knowledge in Drug Safety Evaluation - Drug Induced Liver Injury Prediction System (DILIps)

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Translating Clinical Findings into Knowledge in Drug Safety Evaluation - Drug Induced Liver Injury Prediction System (DILIps)
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002310
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhichao Liu, Qiang Shi, Don Ding, Reagan Kelly, Hong Fang, Weida Tong

Abstract

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a significant concern in drug development due to the poor concordance between preclinical and clinical findings of liver toxicity. We hypothesized that the DILI types (hepatotoxic side effects) seen in the clinic can be translated into the development of predictive in silico models for use in the drug discovery phase. We identified 13 hepatotoxic side effects with high accuracy for classifying marketed drugs for their DILI potential. We then developed in silico predictive models for each of these 13 side effects, which were further combined to construct a DILI prediction system (DILIps). The DILIps yielded 60-70% prediction accuracy for three independent validation sets. To enhance the confidence for identification of drugs that cause severe DILI in humans, the "Rule of Three" was developed in DILIps by using a consensus strategy based on 13 models. This gave high positive predictive value (91%) when applied to an external dataset containing 206 drugs from three independent literature datasets. Using the DILIps, we screened all the drugs in DrugBank and investigated their DILI potential in terms of protein targets and therapeutic categories through network modeling. We demonstrated that two therapeutic categories, anti-infectives for systemic use and musculoskeletal system drugs, were enriched for DILI, which is consistent with current knowledge. We also identified protein targets and pathways that are related to drugs that cause DILI by using pathway analysis and co-occurrence text mining. While marketed drugs were the focus of this study, the DILIps has a potential as an evaluation tool to screen and prioritize new drug candidates or chemicals, such as environmental chemicals, to avoid those that might cause liver toxicity. We expect that the methodology can be also applied to other drug safety endpoints, such as renal or cardiovascular toxicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 5%
Spain 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 88 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 23%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 11%
Computer Science 8 8%
Chemistry 8 8%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 13 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2013.
All research outputs
#14,535,626
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,098
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,907
of 249,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#55
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.