Imputation · Free · powered by Responder Atlas
Indication Lite.
The free structure-to-indication signal — an application of Responder Atlas. Paste a SMILES string, get a ranked score across 17 cancer tissue types plus a confidence tier reflecting how similar your molecule is to the training set. No account needed.
Included
17 indications, ranked
Every query returns the full tissue-level signal in server-preserved rank order — never re-sorted client-side.
Included
Confidence you can read
Each result carries an elevated / moderate / exploratory tier from chemical similarity to the training set.
Included
Grounded in real data
Predictions derive from DepMap/PRISM cell-line response — the training set is public, the provenance is visible.
Included
Free and unrestricted
No signup needed to run a query. Ranked-indication output is free and unlimited.
What you'll see
An example of the free result.
A preview using the committed gefitinib illustrative sample. Open the tool to run this on your own molecule.
Sample result — gefitinib
This is an illustrative sample so you can see the format. Submit a SMILES above to get your own prediction. The values below come from our committed gefitinib report — they are not tied to anything you've typed.
Confidence & provenance
elevatedBasis: SMILES imputedModel: v0.3
- Max Tanimoto
- 1.00
- Nearest training drug
- gefitinib
- Neighbours ≥ 0.5
- 5
This compound is not in the training set — signal is imputed from chemical structure.
chemistry-similarity tier (max ECFP4 Tanimoto to v0.3 training set): elevated >=0.5 (committed node-rank rho ~0.62, 62.5% reach rho>0.5); moderate 0.4-0.5 (rho ~0.50, 50%); exploratory <0.4 (rho ~0.30, ~18%). Estimated, not guaranteed (committed outlier: doxorubicin tanimoto 1.0 yet rho 0.46).
Ranked indications
6 indications · server-ranked
- 01EsophaguselevatedPredicted viability change+44.2%
reduces viability — predicted cell killing
Selectivity vs. this drug's average+62%more responsive than this drug's own average
- 02Upper AerodigestiveelevatedPredicted viability change+32.6%
reduces viability — predicted cell killing
Selectivity vs. this drug's average+34%more responsive than this drug's own average
- 03Urinary TractelevatedPredicted viability change+30.5%
reduces viability — predicted cell killing
Selectivity vs. this drug's average+30%more responsive than this drug's own average
- 04PancreaselevatedPredicted viability change+18.7%
reduces viability — predicted cell killing
Selectivity vs. this drug's average+11%more responsive than this drug's own average
- 05UteruselevatedPredicted viability change+17.5%
reduces viability — predicted cell killing
Selectivity vs. this drug's average+10%more responsive than this drug's own average
- 06OvaryelevatedPredicted viability change+14.8%
reduces viability — predicted cell killing
Selectivity vs. this drug's average+6%more responsive than this drug's own average
Two different things. Predicted viability change is the absolute effect — whether the drug is predicted to reduce viability (kill; bar right of zero) or increase it (proliferate; bar left). Selectivity is how that indication compares to this drug's own average across all indications (bar right = more responsive). Both bars diverge around a zero line.
Preview shows the top 6 of 17 indications. A real submission returns the full ranked list.
Want more?
Full Responder Report adds subpopulations and biomarkers.
The paid layer names which cell-line strata concentrate the response and which expression / mutation features discriminate them. Hypothesis-generating leads, not clinical prescriptions.
See Indication Full