ArticleMolecular diversity2013
Reliably assessing prediction reliability for high dimensional QSAR data.
Article in Molecular diversity, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safe-by-redesign guidance for toxic industrial chemicals using explainable artificial intelligence: Introducing the DETOX-QSAR model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- How Precise Are Our Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Derived Predictions for New Query Chemicals?ACS omega · 2018Article
- Enhanced QSAR model performance by integrating structural and gene expression information.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predictability and prediction reliability are of utmost important to characterize a good Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) model. However, validation methods are insufficient to guarantee the prediction reliability of QSAR models. Moreover, high dimensional samples also pose great challenge to traditional methods in terms of predictive power. Therefore, this study presents a predictive classifier (i.e., TreeEC) that can assess prediction reliability with high confidence, especially for facing high dimensional QSAR data. Two approaches for assessing prediction reliability are provided, i.e., applicability domain and prediction confidence. We demonstrate that the applicability domain has difficulty to guarantee the models' prediction reliability, where samples intensively close to the domain center are often poor predicted than those outside the domain. Instead, prediction confidence is more promising for assessing prediction reliability. Based on a large data set assessed by prediction confidence, external samples assessed with high confidence greater than 95 % can be reliably predicted with an accuracy of 94 %, in contrast to the average accuracy of 84 %. We also illustrate that TreeEC are less affected by high dimensionality than other popular methods according to 11 public data sets. A free version of TreeEC with a user-friendly interface can also be downloading from website http://pharminfo.zju.edu.cn/computation/TreeEC/TreeEC.html.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23250826What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.