Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33669834›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Effect of Dataset Size and Train/Test Split Ratios in QSAR/QSPR Multiclass Classification.

Anita Rácz, Dávid Bajusz, Károly Héberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Building structure activity relationships to avoid toxicity due to unwanted central nervous system ion channel activity.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. FMEA based prescriptive model for equipment repair guidance.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

3 authors.

Anita RáczDepartment of Plasma Chemistry, Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, ELKH Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Magyar Tudósok krt. 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-8271-9841
Dávid BajuszMedicinal Chemistry Research Group, ELKH Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Magyar Tudósok krt. 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-4277-9481
Károly HébergerDepartment of Plasma Chemistry, Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, ELKH Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Magyar Tudósok krt. 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-0965-939X

Funding

Hungarian Academy of Sciences: János Bolyai Research Scholarship - DB. No grant number is givenNational Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary OTKA, contract K 134260 - KHNational Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary OTKA, contract PD134416 - AR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Applied datasets can vary from a few hundred to thousands of samples in typical quantitative structure-activity/property (QSAR/QSPR) relationships and classification. However, the size of the datasets and the train/test split ratios can greatly affect the outcome of the models, and thus the classification performance itself. We compared several combinations of dataset sizes and split ratios with five different machine learning algorithms to find the differences or similarities and to select the best parameter settings in nonbinary (multiclass) classification. It is also known that the models are ranked differently according to the performance merit(s) used. Here, 25 performance parameters were calculated for each model, then factorial ANOVA was applied to compare the results. The results clearly show the differences not just between the applied machine learning algorithms but also between the dataset sizes and to a lesser extent the train/test split ratios. The XGBoost algorithm could outperform the others, even in multiclass modeling. The performance parameters reacted differently to the change of the sample set size; some of them were much more sensitive to this factor than the others. Moreover, significant differences could be detected between train/test split ratios as well, exerting a great effect on the test validation of our models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases as TopicQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipConfidence IntervalsMachine Learningimbalancedmachine learningmulticlass classificationtraining/test split ratiovalidationXGBoost

Identifiers

PMID33669834
PMCPMC7922354

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.