Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34544485›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2021

A hybrid framework for improving uncertainty quantification in deep learning-based QSAR regression modeling.

Dingyan Wang, Jie Yu, Lifan Chen, Xutong Li, Hualiang Jiang, Kaixian Chen, Mingyue Zheng, Xiaomin Luo

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Chemprop: A Machine Learning Package for Chemical Property Prediction.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024
    Article
  7. Recent Deep Learning Applications to Structure-Based Drug Design.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

8 authors.

Dingyan Wang *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Academy of Forensic Science, Shanghai, 200063, China.
Jie Yu *University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China.
Lifan ChenUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China.
Xutong LiUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China.
Hualiang JiangUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China.
Kaixian ChenUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China.
Mingyue ZhengUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China. myzheng@simm.ac.cn.
Xiaomin LuoShanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Academy of Forensic Science, Shanghai, 200063, China. xmluo@simm.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0426-3417

Funding

national natural science foundation of china 81773634national science & technology major project "key new drug creation and manufacturing program" of china 2018ZX09711002-001-003Opening Funds of Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine (Academy of Forensic Science) KF1907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reliable uncertainty quantification for statistical models is crucial in various downstream applications, especially for drug design and discovery where mistakes may incur a large amount of cost. This topic has therefore absorbed much attention and a plethora of methods have been proposed over the past years. The approaches that have been reported so far can be mainly categorized into two classes: distance-based approaches and Bayesian approaches. Although these methods have been widely used in many scenarios and shown promising performance with their distinct superiorities, being overconfident on out-of-distribution examples still poses challenges for the deployment of these techniques in real-world applications. In this study we investigated a number of consensus strategies in order to combine both distance-based and Bayesian approaches together with post-hoc calibration for improved uncertainty quantification in QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship) regression modeling. We employed a set of criteria to quantitatively assess the ranking and calibration ability of these models. Experiments based on 24 bioactivity datasets were designed to make critical comparison between the model we proposed and other well-studied baseline models. Our findings indicate that the hybrid framework proposed by us can robustly enhance the model ability of ranking absolute errors. Together with post-hoc calibration on the validation set, we show that well-calibrated uncertainty quantification results can be obtained in domain shift settings. The complementarity between different methods is also conceptually analyzed.

Indexed as

Applicability domainArtificial intelligenceBayesian inferenceBayesian neural networkError predictionQuantitative structure–activity relationshipUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID34544485
PMCPMC8454160

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.