Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30561225›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2018

Best Practices for QSAR Model Reporting: Physical and Chemical Properties, Ecotoxicity, Environmental Fate, Human Health, and Toxicokinetics Endpoints.

Geven Piir, Iiris Kahn, Alfonso T García-Sosa, Sulev Sild, Priit Ahte, Uko Maran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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.

Geven PiirInstitute of Chemistry, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Iiris KahnDepartment of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia.
Alfonso T García-SosaInstitute of Chemistry, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Sulev SildInstitute of Chemistry, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Priit AhteDepartment of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia.
Uko MaranInstitute of Chemistry, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuantitative and qualitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) have been used to understand chemical behavior for almost a century. The main source of QSAR models is the scientific literature, but the open question is how well these models are documented.

objectivesThe main aim of this study was to critically analyze the publication practices of QSARs with regard to transparency, potential reproducibility, and independent verification. The focus was on the level of technical completeness of the published QSARs.

methodsA total of 1,533 QSAR articles reporting 79 individual endpoints, mostly in environmental and health science, were reviewed. The QSAR parameters required for technical completeness were grouped into five categories: chemical structures, experimental endpoint values, descriptor values, mathematical representation of the model, and predicted endpoint values. The data were summarized and discussed using Circos plots.

resultsAltogether, 42.5% of the reviewed articles were found to be potentially reproducible. The potential reproducibility for different endpoint groups varied; the respective rates were 39% for physical and chemical properties, 52% for ecotoxicity, 56% for environmental fate, 30% for human health, and 32% for toxicokinetics. The reproducibility of QSARs is discussed and placed in the context of the reproducibility of the experimental methods. Included are 65 references to open QSAR datasets as examples of models restored from scientific articles. DISCUSSION: Strikingly poor documentation of QSARs was observed, which reduces the transparency, availability, and consequently, the application of research results in scientific, industrial, and regulatory areas. A list of the components needed to ensure the best practices for QSAR reporting is provided, allowing long-term use and preservation of the models. This list also allows an assessment of the reproducibility of models by interested parties such as journal editors, reviewers, regulators, evaluators, and potential users. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3264.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipChemical PhenomenaEcotoxicologyEnvironmental ExposureHumansReproducibility of ResultsToxicokinetics

Identifiers

PMID30561225
PMCPMC6371683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.