Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26839598›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2016

ADMET evaluation in drug discovery: 15. Accurate prediction of rat oral acute toxicity using relevance vector machine and consensus modeling.

Tailong Lei, Youyong Li, Yunlong Song, Dan Li, Huiyong Sun, Tingjun Hou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review of machine learning and deep learning models for toxicity prediction.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tailong LeiCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058 Zhejiang People's Republic of China.
Youyong LiInstitute of Functional Nano and Soft Materials (FUNSOM), Soochow University, Suzhou, 215123 Jiangsu People's Republic of China.
Yunlong SongDepartment of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433 People's Republic of China.
Dan LiCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058 Zhejiang People's Republic of China.
Huiyong SunCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058 Zhejiang People's Republic of China.
Tingjun HouCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058 Zhejiang People's Republic of China ; State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058 Zhejiang People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermination of acute toxicity, expressed as median lethal dose (LD50), is one of the most important steps in drug discovery pipeline. Because in vivo assays for oral acute toxicity in mammals are time-consuming and costly, there is thus an urgent need to develop in silico prediction models of oral acute toxicity.

resultsIn this study, based on a comprehensive data set containing 7314 diverse chemicals with rat oral LD50 values, relevance vector machine (RVM) technique was employed to build the regression models for the prediction of oral acute toxicity in rate, which were compared with those built using other six machine learning approaches, including k-nearest-neighbor regression, random forest (RF), support vector machine, local approximate Gaussian process, multilayer perceptron ensemble, and eXtreme gradient boosting. A subset of the original molecular descriptors and structural fingerprints (PubChem or SubFP) was chosen by the Chi squared statistics. The prediction capabilities of individual QSAR models, measured by q ext (2) for the test set containing 2376 molecules, ranged from 0.572 to 0.659.

conclusionConsidering the overall prediction accuracy for the test set, RVM with Laplacian kernel and RF were recommended to build in silico models with better predictivity for rat oral acute toxicity. By combining the predictions from individual models, four consensus models were developed, yielding better prediction capabilities for the test set (q ext (2) = 0.669-0.689). Finally, some essential descriptors and substructures relevant to oral acute toxicity were identified and analyzed, and they may be served as property or substructure alerts to avoid toxicity. We believe that the best consensus model with high prediction accuracy can be used as a reliable virtual screening tool to filter out compounds with high rat oral acute toxicity. Graphical abstractWorkflow of combinatorial QSAR modelling to predict rat oral acute toxicity.

Identifiers

PMID26839598
PMCPMC4736633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.