Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29780432›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science

Arwa B Raies, Vladimir B Bajic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Frequency and time domainPhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A CuChemical science · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Catalyst-Free Transfer Hydrogenation of Activated Alkenes Exploiting Isopropanol as the Sole and Traceless Reductant.Green chemistry : an international journal and green chemistry resource : GC · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Arwa B RaiesComputational Bioscience Research Centre (CBRC), Computer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering Division (CEMSE) King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Thuwal Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-3952-7363
Vladimir B BajicComputational Bioscience Research Centre (CBRC), Computer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering Division (CEMSE) King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Thuwal Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-5435-4750

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One goal of toxicity testing, among others, is identifying harmful effects of chemicals. Given the high demand for toxicity tests, it is necessary to conduct these tests for multiple toxicity endpoints for the same compound. Current computational toxicology methods aim at developing models mainly to predict a single toxicity endpoint. When chemicals cause several toxicity effects, one model is generated to predict toxicity for each endpoint, which can be labor and computationally intensive when the number of toxicity endpoints is large. Additionally, this approach does not take into consideration possible correlation between the endpoints. Therefore, there has been a recent shift in computational toxicity studies toward generating predictive models able to predict several toxicity endpoints by utilizing correlations between these endpoints. Applying such correlations jointly with compounds' features may improve model's performance and reduce the number of required models. This can be achieved through multi-label classification methods. These methods have not undergone comprehensive benchmarking in the domain of predictive toxicology. Therefore, we performed extensive benchmarking and analysis of over 19,000 multi-label classification models generated using combinations of the state-of-the-art methods. The methods have been evaluated from different perspectives using various metrics to assess their effectiveness. We were able to illustrate variability in the performance of the methods under several conditions. This review will help researchers to select the most suitable method for the problem at hand and provide a baseline for evaluating new approaches. Based on this analysis, we provided recommendations for potential future directions in this area. This article is categorized under: 1Computer and Information Science > Chemoinformatics2Computer and Information Science > Computer Algorithms and Programming.

Identifiers

PMID29780432
PMCPMC5947741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.