ArticleCurrent computer-aided drug design2025
Hybrid Class Balancing Approach for Chemical Compound Toxicity Prediction.
Article in Current computer-aided drug design, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionComputational methods are crucial for efficient and cost-effective drug toxicity prediction. Unfortunately, the data used for prediction is often imbalanced, resulting in biased models that favor the majority class. This paper proposes an approach to apply a hybrid class balancing technique and evaluate its performance on computational models for toxicity prediction in Tox21 datasets.
methodsThe process begins by converting chemical compound data structures (SMILES strings) from various bioassay datasets into molecular descriptors that can be processed by algorithms. Subsequently, Undersampling and Oversampling techniques are applied in two different schemes on the training data. In the first scheme (Individual), only one balancing technique (Oversampling or Undersampling) is used. In the second scheme (Hybrid), the training data is divided according to a ratio (e.g., 90-10), applying a different balancing technique to each proportion. We considered eight resampling techniques (four Oversampling and four Undersampling), six molecular descriptors (based on MACCS, ECFP, and Mordred), and five classification models (KNN, MLP, RF, XGB and SVM) over 10 bioassay datasets to determine the configurations that yield the best performance.
resultsWe defined three testing scenarios: without balancing techniques (baseline), Individual, and Hybrid. We found that using the ENN technique in the MACCS-MLP combination resulted in a 10.01% improvement in performance. The increase for ECFP6-2048 was 16.47% after incorporating a combination of the SMOTE (10%) and RUS (90%) techniques. Meanwhile, using the same combination of techniques, MORDRED-XGB showed the most significant increase in performance, achieving a 22.62% improvement.
conclusionIntegrating any of the class balancing schemes resulted in a minimum of 10.01% improvement in prediction performance compared to the best baseline configuration. In this study, Undersampling techniques were more appropriate due to the significant overlap among samples. By eliminating specific samples from the predominant class that are close to the minority class, this overlap is greatly reduced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39318212What 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.