Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31167452›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Error Tolerance of Machine Learning Algorithms across Contemporary Biological Targets.

Thomas M Kaiser, Pieter B Burger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Machine Learning Methods in Drug Discovery.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  7. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas M KaiserSt Peter's College, University of Oxford, New Inn Hall St, Oxford OX1 2DL, UK. thomas.kaiser@spc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5174-9183
Pieter B BurgerDepartment of Drug Discovery and Biomedical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, 280 Calhoun St. MSC 141, Charleston, SC 29425-1410, USA. pieter.burger@gmail.com.
Emory University · USUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning continues to make strident advances in the prediction of desired properties concerning drug development. Problematically, the efficacy of machine learning in these arenas is reliant upon highly accurate and abundant data. These two limitations, high accuracy and abundance, are often taken together; however, insight into the dataset accuracy limitation of contemporary machine learning algorithms may yield insight into whether non-bench experimental sources of data may be used to generate useful machine learning models where there is a paucity of experimental data. We took highly accurate data across six kinase types, one GPCR, one polymerase, a human protease, and HIV protease, and intentionally introduced error at varying population proportions in the datasets for each target. With the generated error in the data, we explored how the retrospective accuracy of a Naïve Bayes Network, a Random Forest Model, and a Probabilistic Neural Network model decayed as a function of error. Additionally, we explored the ability of a training dataset with an error profile resembling that produced by the Free Energy Perturbation method (FEP+) to generate machine learning models with useful retrospective capabilities. The categorical error tolerance was quite high for a Naïve Bayes Network algorithm averaging 39% error in the training set required to lose predictivity on the test set. Additionally, a Random Forest tolerated a significant degree of categorical error introduced into the training set with an average error of 29% required to lose predictivity. However, we found the Probabilistic Neural Network algorithm did not tolerate as much categorical error requiring an average of 20% error to lose predictivity. Finally, we found that a Naïve Bayes Network and a Random Forest could both use datasets with an error profile resembling that of FEP+. This work demonstrates that computational methods of known error distribution like FEP+ may be useful in generating machine learning models not based on extensive and expensive in vitro-generated datasets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningModels, BiologicalAntineoplastic AgentsBayes TheoremBiomarkers, TumorDrug DiscoveryHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveWorkflowAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumoranaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)cheminformaticsdrug discoveryerrorFEPmachine learningNaïve Bayes NetworkNeural NetworkRandom Forest

Identifiers

PMID31167452
PMCPMC6601015
OpenAlexW2948282852

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.