Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42541668›Full record

ArticleMolecular diversity2026

Scoring pesticide-likeness of organic compounds via explainable one-class machine learning.

Suyu Mei

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diversity, 2026. 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

1 author.

Suyu MeiCollege of Artificial Intelligence, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, 110034, China. meisygle@outlook.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pesticides, especially eco-friendly biopesticides, are indispensable for crops protection and food security. In this work, we propose a scoring framework to screen or repurpose existing organic compounds, natural products and pharmaceutical drugs as sustainable agrochemicals. This scoring strategy adopts one-class support vector machine (OCSVM) as base learner to capture the patterns of pharmacophore-relevant fragments of organic compounds exhibiting pesticidal effects, in which only pesticides are required as training data, and the uncertainty and error-proneness of conventional sampling of negative training data are eliminated. T-SNE demonstrates that Morgan fingerprint is effective to transform molecule-level heterogeneity into fragment-level homogeneity to comply the requirement of OCSVM cohesive space. Furthermoe, Morgan bits are explained via SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) in terms of significance, and are visualized via reverse engineering to bridge the gap between abstract representation of local chemical environments and intuitive structural fragments. Hierarchical clustering analyses show that two molecules exhibiting close substructural/fragmental similarities tend to be physically proximal in the inlier subspace, justifying the metric validity and explainability of OCSVM hyperplane distances as pesticide-likeness scores. K-fold cross validation (k = 5) shows that the OCSVM model achieves 4% novelty or outlier rate with the empirically and heuristically determined hyperparameters ([Formula: see text]). External test on 38 independent biopesticides shows that the OCSVM model recognises 92% of external biopesticides, equivalent to or better than two binary supervised classifiers (82.05% and 81.57%). Further model sanity check demonstrates that the OCSVM model has the competitive potentials of screening natural products molecules or fragments as eco-friendly biopesticides.

Indexed as

BiopesticideMorgan fingerprintNatural productsOne-class support vector machine (OCSVM)SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.