Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36758178›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2023

Blinded Predictions and Post Hoc Analysis of the Second Solubility Challenge Data: Exploring Training Data and Feature Set Selection for Machine and Deep Learning Models.

Jonathan G M Conn, James W Carter, Justin J A Conn, Vigneshwari Subramanian, Andrew Baxter, Ola Engkvist, Antonio Llinas, Ekaterina L Ratkova, Stephen D Pickett, James L McDonagh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Jonathan G M ConnDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G1 1XL, U.K.
James W CarterDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G1 1XL, U.K.
Justin J A ConnDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G1 1XL, U.K.
Vigneshwari SubramanianDrug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, Research and Early Development, Respiratory & Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Pepparedsleden 1, SE-431 83 Göteborg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7319-8885
Andrew BaxterGSK Medicines Research Centre, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY, U.K.
Ola EngkvistMedicinal Chemistry, Research and Early Development, Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolism (CVRM), BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, SE-431 50 Göteborg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4970-6461
Antonio LlinasDrug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, Research and Early Development, Respiratory & Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Pepparedsleden 1, SE-431 83 Göteborg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4620-9363
Ekaterina L RatkovaMedicinal Chemistry, Research and Early Development, Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolism (CVRM), BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, SE-431 50 Göteborg, Sweden.
Stephen D PickettComputational Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline R&D Pharmaceuticals, Stevenage SG1 2NY, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-0958-9830
James L McDonaghIBM Research Europe, Hartree Centre, SciTech Daresbury, Warrington, Cheshire WA4 4AD, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-2323-6898
David S PalmerDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G1 1XL, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-4356-9144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate methods to predict solubility from molecular structure are highly sought after in the chemical sciences. To assess the state of the art, the American Chemical Society organized a "Second Solubility Challenge" in 2019, in which competitors were invited to submit blinded predictions of the solubilities of 132 drug-like molecules. In the first part of this article, we describe the development of two models that were submitted to the Blind Challenge in 2019 but which have not previously been reported. These models were based on computationally inexpensive molecular descriptors and traditional machine learning algorithms and were trained on a relatively small data set of 300 molecules. In the second part of the article, to test the hypothesis that predictions would improve with more advanced algorithms and higher volumes of training data, we compare these original predictions with those made after the deadline using deep learning models trained on larger solubility data sets consisting of 2999 and 5697 molecules. The results show that there are several algorithms that are able to obtain near state-of-the-art performance on the solubility challenge data sets, with the best model, a graph convolutional neural network, resulting in an RMSE of 0.86 log units. Critical analysis of the models reveals systematic differences between the performance of models using certain feature sets and training data sets. The results suggest that careful selection of high quality training data from relevant regions of chemical space is critical for prediction accuracy but that other methodological issues remain problematic for machine learning solubility models, such as the difficulty in modeling complex chemical spaces from sparse training data sets.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerSolubility

Identifiers

PMID36758178
PMCPMC9976279

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.