Literature DB >> 21800825

Real external predictivity of QSAR models: how to evaluate it? Comparison of different validation criteria and proposal of using the concordance correlation coefficient.

Nicola Chirico1, Paola Gramatica.   

Abstract

The main utility of QSAR models is their ability to predict activities/properties for new chemicals, and this external prediction ability is evaluated by means of various validation criteria. As a measure for such evaluation the OECD guidelines have proposed the predictive squared correlation coefficient Q(2)(F1) (Shi et al.). However, other validation criteria have been proposed by other authors: the Golbraikh-Tropsha method, r(2)(m) (Roy), Q(2)(F2) (Schüürmann et al.), Q(2)(F3) (Consonni et al.). In QSAR studies these measures are usually in accordance, though this is not always the case, thus doubts can arise when contradictory results are obtained. It is likely that none of the aforementioned criteria is the best in every situation, so a comparative study using simulated data sets is proposed here, using threshold values suggested by the proponents or those widely used in QSAR modeling. In addition, a different and simple external validation measure, the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), is proposed and compared with other criteria. Huge data sets were used to study the general behavior of validation measures, and the concordance correlation coefficient was shown to be the most restrictive. On using simulated data sets of a more realistic size, it was found that CCC was broadly in agreement, about 96% of the time, with other validation measures in accepting models as predictive, and in almost all the examples it was the most precautionary. The proposed concordance correlation coefficient also works well on real data sets, where it seems to be more stable, and helps in making decisions when the validation measures are in conflict. Since it is conceptually simple, and given its stability and restrictiveness, we propose the concordance correlation coefficient as a complementary, or alternative, more prudent measure of a QSAR model to be externally predictive.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21800825     DOI: 10.1021/ci200211n

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Model        ISSN: 1549-9596            Impact factor:   4.956


  70 in total

1.  Geometry optimization method versus predictive ability in QSPR modeling for ionic liquids.

Authors:  Anna Rybinska; Anita Sosnowska; Maciej Barycki; Tomasz Puzyn
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Computational predictive models for P-glycoprotein inhibition of in-house chalcone derivatives and drug-bank compounds.

Authors:  Trieu-Du Ngo; Thanh-Dao Tran; Minh-Tri Le; Khac-Minh Thai
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 2.943

3.  QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to?

Authors:  Artem Cherkasov; Eugene N Muratov; Denis Fourches; Alexandre Varnek; Igor I Baskin; Mark Cronin; John Dearden; Paola Gramatica; Yvonne C Martin; Roberto Todeschini; Viviana Consonni; Victor E Kuz'min; Richard Cramer; Romualdo Benigni; Chihae Yang; James Rathman; Lothar Terfloth; Johann Gasteiger; Ann Richard; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Estimation of influential points in any data set from coefficient of determination and its leave-one-out cross-validated counterpart.

Authors:  Gergely Tóth; Zsolt Bodai; Károly Héberger
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-10-20       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Structure-activity analysis of harmful algae inhibition by congeneric compounds: case studies of fatty acids and thiazolidinediones.

Authors:  Haomin Huang; Xi Xiao; Jiyan Shi; Yingxu Chen
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Nonlinear QSAR modeling for predicting cytotoxicity of ionic liquids in leukemia rat cell line: an aid to green chemicals designing.

Authors:  Shikha Gupta; Nikita Basant; Kunwar P Singh
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 4.223

7.  Modeling and Prediction of Solvent Effect on Human Skin Permeability using Support Vector Regression and Random Forest.

Authors:  Hiromi Baba; Jun-ichi Takahara; Fumiyoshi Yamashita; Mitsuru Hashida
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Concentration-dependent adsorption of organic contaminants by graphene nanosheets: quantum-mechanical models.

Authors:  Suman Lata
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 1.810

9.  Acute aquatic toxicity of organic solvents modeled by QSARs.

Authors:  A Levet; C Bordes; Y Clément; P Mignon; C Morell; H Chermette; P Marote; P Lantéri
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 1.810

10.  Modeling the toxicity of chemical pesticides in multiple test species using local and global QSTR approaches.

Authors:  Nikita Basant; Shikha Gupta; Kunwar P Singh
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 3.524

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.