Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41280780›Full record

ArticleACS omega2025

Development of Pesticide-Likeness Scores and Models for Predicting Pesticide Activity of Molecular Scaffolds with Machine Learning.

Yuta Sakai, Hiromasa Kaneko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Yuta SakaiDepartment of Applied Chemistry, School of Science and Technology, Meiji University, 1-1-1 Higashi-Mita, Tama-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 214-8571, Japan.
Hiromasa KanekoDepartment of Applied Chemistry, School of Science and Technology, Meiji University, 1-1-1 Higashi-Mita, Tama-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 214-8571, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8367-6476

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To develop pesticide molecules efficiently, machine learning models to predict the activity of pesticides on specific species have been proposed; however, the construction of activity target models for individual species is required because of the wide range of species that are active targets of pesticides, which is insufficient. In this study, we propose pesticide-likeness scores for chemical structures in a more comprehensive manner without relying on specific active targets. Combined data sets that are independent of the species of the active target were prepared; classification models that predict positive or negative activity from chemical structures are prepared, and the pesticide-likeness scores are calculated as the probability of positiveness with the constructed models. The pesticide-likeness scores were used as molecular descriptors in activity prediction models to achieve the same level of prediction accuracy as general molecular descriptors. In addition, the activity of pesticides is greatly affected by molecular scaffolds, and it is important in pesticide molecular design to remove scaffolds that provide inactive molecules no matter what substructures are added and to propose promising scaffolds that provide active molecules. We constructed machine learning models between the activity of scaffolds and chemical structures of scaffolds and proposed promising scaffolds by inputting chemical structures of scaffolds with unknown activity into the constructed models and selecting the scaffolds with high predicted activity. Furthermore, we obtained new knowledge by visualizing the contribution of fingerprints in activity prediction on the proposed scaffolds.

Identifiers

PMID41280780
PMCPMC12631466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.