Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33926567›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2021

Assessing the calibration in toxicological in vitro models with conformal prediction.

Andrea Morger, Fredrik Svensson, Staffan Arvidsson McShane, Niharika Gauraha, Ulf Norinder, Ola Spjuth, Andrea Volkamer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Machine Learning Strategies When Transitioning between Biological Assays.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Andrea MorgerIn Silico Toxicology and Structural Bioinformatics, Institute of Physiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Fredrik SvenssonAlzheimer's Research UK UCL Drug Discovery Institute, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Staffan Arvidsson McShaneDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Niharika GaurahaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ulf NorinderDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ola Spjuth *Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Andrea Volkamer *In Silico Toxicology and Structural Bioinformatics, Institute of Physiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. andrea.volkamer@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3760-580X

Funding

Alzheimer's Research UK 560832Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 031A262CStiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning grant BD150008Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas 2018-00924Vetenskapsrådet 2020-01865Vetenskapsrådet 2020-03731
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning methods are widely used in drug discovery and toxicity prediction. While showing overall good performance in cross-validation studies, their predictive power (often) drops in cases where the query samples have drifted from the training data's descriptor space. Thus, the assumption for applying machine learning algorithms, that training and test data stem from the same distribution, might not always be fulfilled. In this work, conformal prediction is used to assess the calibration of the models. Deviations from the expected error may indicate that training and test data originate from different distributions. Exemplified on the Tox21 datasets, composed of chronologically released Tox21Train, Tox21Test and Tox21Score subsets, we observed that while internally valid models could be trained using cross-validation on Tox21Train, predictions on the external Tox21Score data resulted in higher error rates than expected. To improve the prediction on the external sets, a strategy exchanging the calibration set with more recent data, such as Tox21Test, has successfully been introduced. We conclude that conformal prediction can be used to diagnose data drifts and other issues related to model calibration. The proposed improvement strategy-exchanging the calibration data only-is convenient as it does not require retraining of the underlying model.

Indexed as

Applicability domainCalibration plotsConformal predictionData driftsTox21 datasetsToxicity prediction

Identifiers

PMID33926567
PMCPMC8082859

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.