A number of supervised machine learning models have recently been introduced for the prediction of drug–target interactions based on chemical structure and genomic sequence information. Although these models could offer improved means for many network pharmacology applications, such as repositioning of drugs for new therapeutic uses, the prediction models are often being constructed and evaluated under overly simplified settings that do not reflect the real-life problem in practical applications. Using quantitative drug–target bioactivity assays for kinase inhibitors, as well as a popular benchmarking data set of binary drug–target interactions for enzyme, ion channel, nuclear receptor and G protein-coupled receptor targets, we illustrate here the effects of four factors that may lead to dramatic differences in the prediction results: (i) problem formulation (standard binary classification or more realistic regression formulation), (ii) evaluation data set (drug and target families in the application use case), (iii) evaluation procedure (simple or nested cross-validation) and (iv) experimental setting (whether training and test sets share common drugs and targets, only drugs or targets or neither). Each of these factors should be taken into consideration to avoid reporting overoptimistic drug–target interaction prediction results. We also suggest guidelines on how to make the supervised drug–target interaction prediction studies more realistic in terms of such model formulations and evaluation setups that better address the inherent complexity of the prediction task in the practical applications, as well as novel benchmarking data sets that capture the continuous nature of the drug–target interactions for kinase inhibitors.

IntroductionInformation has been the key to a better organization and new developments. The more information we have, the more optimally we can organize ourselves to deliver the best outcomes. That is why data collection is an important part for every organization. We can also use this data for the prediction of current trends of certain parameters and future events. As we are becoming more and more aware of this, we have started producing and collecting more data about almost everything by introducing technological developments in this direction. Today, we are facing a situation wherein we are flooded with tons of data from every aspect of our life such as social activities, science, work, health, etc. In a way, we can compare the present situation to a data deluge. The technological advances have helped us in generating more and more data, even to a level Abstract 'Big data' is massive amounts of information that can work wonders. It has become a topic of special interest for the past two decades because of a great potential that is hidden in it. Various public and private sector industries generate, store, and analyze big data with an aim to improve the services they provide. In the healthcare industry, various sources for big data include hospital records, medical records of patients, results of medical examinations, and devices that are a part of internet of things. Biomedical research also generates a significant portion of big data relevant to public healthcare. This data requires proper management and analysis in order to derive meaningful information. Otherwise, seeking solution by analyzing big data quickly becomes comparable to finding a needle in the haystack. There are various challenges associated with each step of handling big data which can only be surpassed by using high-end computing solutions for big data analysis. That is why, to provide relevant solutions for improving public health, healthcare providers are required to be fully equipped with appropriate infrastructure to systematically generate and analyze big data. An efficient management, analysis, and interpretation of big data can change the game by opening new avenues for modern healthcare. That is exactly why various industries, including the healthcare industry, are taking vigorous steps to convert this potential into better services and financial advantages. With a strong integration of biomedical and healthcare data, modern healthcare organizations can possibly revolutionize the medical therapies and personalized medicine.

We carried out a systematic evaluation of target selectivity profiles across three recent large-scale biochemical assays of kinase inhibitors and further compared these standardized bioactivity assays with data reported in the widely used databases ChEMBL and STITCH. Our comparative evaluation revealed relative benefits and potential limitations among the bioactivity types, as well as pinpointed biases in the database curation processes. Ignoring such issues in data heterogeneity and representation may lead to biased modeling of drugs' polypharmacological effects as well as to unrealistic evaluation of computational strategies for the prediction of drug-target interaction networks. Toward making use of the complementary information captured by the various bioactivity types, including IC50, K(i), and K(d), we also introduce a model-based integration approach, termed KIBA, and demonstrate here how it can be used to classify kinase inhibitor targets and to pinpoint potential errors in database-reported drug-target interactions. An integrated drug-target bioactivity matrix across 52,498 chemical compounds and 467 kinase targets, including a total of 246,088 KIBA scores, has been made freely available.