ArticleChemical research in toxicology2025
Data Exploration for Target Predictions Using Proprietary and Publicly Available Data Sets.
Article in Chemical research in toxicology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When applying machine learning (ML) approaches for the prediction of bioactivity, it is common to collect data from different assays or sources and combine them into single data sets. However, depending on the data domains and sources from which these data are retrieved, bioactivity data for the same macromolecular target may show a high variance of values (looking at a single compound) and cover very different parts of the chemical space as well as the bioactivity range (looking at the whole data set). The effectiveness and applicability domain of the resulting prediction models may be strongly influenced by the sources from which their training data were retrieved. Therefore, we investigated the chemical space and active/inactive distribution of proprietary pharmaceutical data from Bayer AG and the publicly available ChEMBL database, and their impact when applied as training data for classification models. For this end, we applied two different sets of descriptors in combination with different ML algorithms. The results show substantial differences in chemical space between the two different data sources, leading to suboptimal prediction performance when models are applied to domains other than their training data. MCC values between -0.34 and 0.37 among all targets were retrieved, indicating suboptimal model performance when models trained on Bayer AG data were tested on ChEMBL data and vice versa. The mean Tanimoto similarity of the nearest neighbors between these two data sources indicated similarities for 31 targets equal to or less than 0.3. Interestingly, all applied methods to assess overlap of chemical space of the two data sources to predict the applicability of models beyond their training data sets did not correlate with observed performances. Finally, we applied different strategies for creating mixed training data sets based on both public and proprietary sources, using assay format (cell-based and cell-free) information and Tanimoto similarities.
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.