Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33372637›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2020

Structure-activity relationship-based chemical classification of highly imbalanced Tox21 datasets.

Gabriel Idakwo, Sundar Thangapandian, Joseph Luttrell, Yan Li, Nan Wang, Zhaoxian Zhou, Huixiao Hong, Bei Yang, Chaoyang Zhang, Ping Gong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Unlocking the potential of AI: Machine learning and deep learning models for predicting carcinogenicity of chemicals.Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review of machine learning and deep learning models for toxicity prediction.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  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

10 authors.

Gabriel IdakwoSchool of Computing Sciences and Computer Engineering, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA.
Sundar ThangapandianEnvironmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, 39180, USA.
Joseph LuttrellSchool of Computing Sciences and Computer Engineering, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA.
Yan LiBennett Aerospace Inc, Cary, NC, 27518, USA.
Nan WangDepartment of Computer Science, New Jersey City University, Jersey City, NJ, 07305, USA.
Zhaoxian ZhouSchool of Computing Sciences and Computer Engineering, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA.
Huixiao HongDivision of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Centre for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA.
Bei YangSchool of Information & Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
Chaoyang ZhangSchool of Computing Sciences and Computer Engineering, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA. chaoyang.zhang@usm.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6873-1780
Ping GongEnvironmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, 39180, USA. Ping.Gong@usace.army.mil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The specificity of toxicant-target biomolecule interactions lends to the very imbalanced nature of many toxicity datasets, causing poor performance in Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR)-based chemical classification. Undersampling and oversampling are representative techniques for handling such an imbalance challenge. However, removing inactive chemical compound instances from the majority class using an undersampling technique can result in information loss, whereas increasing active toxicant instances in the minority class by interpolation tends to introduce artificial minority instances that often cross into the majority class space, giving rise to class overlapping and a higher false prediction rate. In this study, in order to improve the prediction accuracy of imbalanced learning, we employed SMOTEENN, a combination of Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) and Edited Nearest Neighbor (ENN) algorithms, to oversample the minority class by creating synthetic samples, followed by cleaning the mislabeled instances. We chose the highly imbalanced Tox21 dataset, which consisted of 12 in vitro bioassays for > 10,000 chemicals that were distributed unevenly between binary classes. With Random Forest (RF) as the base classifier and bagging as the ensemble strategy, we applied four hybrid learning methods, i.e., RF without imbalance handling (RF), RF with Random Undersampling (RUS), RF with SMOTE (SMO), and RF with SMOTEENN (SMN). The performance of the four learning methods was compared using nine evaluation metrics, among which F

Indexed as

Bootstrap aggregation (bagging)Chemical classificationClass distribution imbalanceEdited nearest neighbor (ENN)Ensemble learningMolecular fingerprintsRandom forest (RF)Random undersampling (RUS)ResamplingStructure–activity relationship (SAR)Synthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE)

Identifiers

PMID33372637
PMCPMC7592558

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.