ArticleACS omega2020
Pruned Machine Learning Models to Predict Aqueous Solubility.
Article in ACS omega, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Random Forest Model Predictions Afford Dual-Stage Antimalarial Agents.ACS infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Evaluation guidelines for machine learning tools in the chemical sciences.Nature reviews. Chemistry · 2022Review
- Novel Solubility Prediction Models: Molecular Fingerprints and Physicochemical Features vs Graph Convolutional Neural Networks.ACS omega · 2022Article
- FP-ADMET: a compendium of fingerprint-based ADMET prediction models.Journal of cheminformatics · 2021Article
- Random Forest Model Prediction of Compound Oral Exposure in the Mouse.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Solubility is a key metric for therapeutic compounds. Conversely, insoluble compounds cloud the accuracy of assays at all stages of chemical biology and drug discovery. Herein, we disclose naïve Bayesian classifier models to predict aqueous solubility. Publicly accessible aqueous solubility data were used to create two full, or nonpruned, training sets. These two sets were also combined to create a full fused set, and a training set comprised of a literature collation of solubility data was also considered as a reference. We tested different extents of data pruning on the training sets and constructed machine learning models that were evaluated with two independent, external test sets that contained compounds that were different from the training sets. The best pruned and fused model was significantly more accurate, in comparison to either the full model or the full fused model, with the prediction of these external test sets. By carefully removing data from the training set, less information can be used to create more accurate machine learning models for aqueous solubility. This knowledge and the curated training sets should prove useful to future machine learning approaches.
Identifiers
What 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.