ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024
A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches for predicting Hepatotoxicity potential using Chemical Structure and Targeted Transcriptomic Data.
Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Molecular similarity: Theory, applications, and perspectives.Artificial intelligence chemistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animal toxicity testing is time and resource intensive, making it difficult to keep pace with the number of substances requiring assessment. Machine learning (ML) models that use chemical structure information and high-throughput experimental data can be helpful in predicting potential toxicity . However, much of the toxicity data used to train ML models is biased with an unequal balance of positives and negatives primarily since substances selected for in vivo testing are expected to elicit some toxicity effect. To investigate the impact this bias had on predictive performance, various sampling approaches were used to balance in vivo toxicity data as part of a supervised ML workflow to predict hepatotoxicity outcomes from chemical structure and/or targeted transcriptomic data. From the chronic, subchronic, developmental, multigenerational reproductive, and subacute repeat-dose testing toxicity outcomes with a minimum of 50 positive and 50 negative substances, 18 different study-toxicity outcome combinations were evaluated in up to 7 ML models. These included Artificial Neural Networks, Random Forests, Bernouilli Naïve Bayes, Gradient Boosting, and Support Vector classification algorithms which were compared with a local approach, Generalised Read-Across (GenRA), a similarity-weighted k-Nearest Neighbour (k-NN) method. The mean CV F1 performance for unbalanced data across all classifiers and descriptors for chronic liver effects was 0.735 (0.0395 SD). Mean CV F1 performance dropped to 0.639 (0.073 SD) with over-sampling approaches though the poorer performance of KNN approaches in some cases contributed to the observed decrease (mean CV F1 performance excluding KNN was 0.697 (0.072 SD)). With under-sampling approaches, the mean CV F1 was 0.523 (0.083 SD). For developmental liver effects, the mean CV F1 performance was much lower with 0.089 (0.111 SD) for unbalanced approaches and 0.149 (0.084 SD) for under-sampling. Over-sampling approaches led to an increase in mean CV F1 performance (0.234, (0.107 SD)) for developmental liver toxicity. Model performance was found to be dependent on dataset, model type, balancing approach and feature selection. Accordingly tailoring ML workflows for predicting toxicity should consider class imbalance and rely on simpler classifiers first.
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.