ArticleScientific reports2022
Studying and mitigating the effects of data drifts on ML model performance at the example of chemical toxicity data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspective on applicability of data-driven machine learning computational new approach methodologies for hazard identification in chemicals risk assessment.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Review
- Explicit Applicability Domain Calculations Can Help Determine When Uncertainty Estimates Are Less Reliable.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Susceptibility of AutoML mortality prediction algorithms to model drift caused by the COVID pandemic.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Review
- The ChEMBL Database in 2023: a drug discovery platform spanning multiple bioactivity data types and time periods.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Methods for Small Data Challenges in Molecular Science.Chemical reviews · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning models are widely applied to predict molecular properties or the biological activity of small molecules on a specific protein. Models can be integrated in a conformal prediction (CP) framework which adds a calibration step to estimate the confidence of the predictions. CP models present the advantage of ensuring a predefined error rate under the assumption that test and calibration set are exchangeable. In cases where the test data have drifted away from the descriptor space of the training data, or where assay setups have changed, this assumption might not be fulfilled and the models are not guaranteed to be valid. In this study, the performance of internally valid CP models when applied to either newer time-split data or to external data was evaluated. In detail, temporal data drifts were analysed based on twelve datasets from the ChEMBL database. In addition, discrepancies between models trained on publicly-available data and applied to proprietary data for the liver toxicity and MNT in vivo endpoints were investigated. In most cases, a drastic decrease in the validity of the models was observed when applied to the time-split or external (holdout) test sets. To overcome the decrease in model validity, a strategy for updating the calibration set with data more similar to the holdout set was investigated. Updating the calibration set generally improved the validity, restoring it completely to its expected value in many cases. The restored validity is the first requisite for applying the CP models with confidence. However, the increased validity comes at the cost of a decrease in model efficiency, as more predictions are identified as inconclusive. This study presents a strategy to recalibrate CP models to mitigate the effects of data drifts. Updating the calibration sets without having to retrain the model has proven to be a useful approach to restore the validity of most models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.