Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34876230›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2021

Splitting chemical structure data sets for federated privacy-preserving machine learning.

Jaak Simm, Lina Humbeck, Adam Zalewski, Noe Sturm, Wouter Heyndrickx, Yves Moreau, Bernd Beck, Ansgar Schuffenhauer

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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. iSIM-Sigma: Efficient Standard Deviation Calculation for Molecular Similarity.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Characterizing Uncertainty in Machine Learning for Chemistry.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Jaak Simm *KU Leuven, ESAT-STADIUS, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, 3001, Heverlee, Belgium.
Lina Humbeck *Medicinal Chemistry Department, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Birkendorfer Str. 65, 88397, Biberach an der Riss, Germany.
Adam Zalewski *Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH, Staffelseestraße 2, 81477, Munich, Germany.
Noe SturmNovartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Novartis Campus, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland.
Wouter HeyndrickxJanssen Pharmaceutica N.V., Janssen Pharmaceutica, Turnhoutseweg 30, 2340, Beerse, Belgium.
Yves MoreauKU Leuven, ESAT-STADIUS, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, 3001, Heverlee, Belgium.
Bernd BeckMedicinal Chemistry Department, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Birkendorfer Str. 65, 88397, Biberach an der Riss, Germany.
Ansgar SchuffenhauerNovartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Novartis Campus, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland. ansgar.schuffenhauer@novartis.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6385-0414

Funding

innovative medicines initiative 831472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increase in applications of machine learning methods in drug design and related fields, the challenge of designing sound test sets becomes more and more prominent. The goal of this challenge is to have a realistic split of chemical structures (compounds) between training, validation and test set such that the performance on the test set is meaningful to infer the performance in a prospective application. This challenge is by its own very interesting and relevant, but is even more complex in a federated machine learning approach where multiple partners jointly train a model under privacy-preserving conditions where chemical structures must not be shared between the different participating parties. In this work we discuss three methods which provide a splitting of a data set and are applicable in a federated privacy-preserving setting, namely: a. locality-sensitive hashing (LSH), b. sphere exclusion clustering, c. scaffold-based binning (scaffold network). For evaluation of these splitting methods we consider the following quality criteria (compared to random splitting): bias in prediction performance, classification label and data imbalance, similarity distance between the test and training set compounds. The main findings of the paper are a. both sphere exclusion clustering and scaffold-based binning result in high quality splitting of the data sets, b. in terms of compute costs sphere exclusion clustering is very expensive in the case of federated privacy-preserving setting.

Indexed as

ChemFoldCross-validationFederated machine learningLeader follower clusteringLocality-sensitive hashingScaffold networkScaffold treeSphere exclusion clusteringTrain-test-split

Identifiers

PMID34876230
PMCPMC8650276

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.