Literature DB >> 33926567

Assessing the calibration in toxicological in vitro models with conformal prediction.

Ola Spjuth1, Andrea Volkamer2, Andrea Morger3, Fredrik Svensson4, Staffan Arvidsson McShane1, Niharika Gauraha1,5, Ulf Norinder1,6,7.   

Abstract

Machine learning methods are widely used in drug discovery and toxicity prediction. While showing overall good performance in cross-validation studies, their predictive power (often) drops in cases where the query samples have drifted from the training data's descriptor space. Thus, the assumption for applying machine learning algorithms, that training and test data stem from the same distribution, might not always be fulfilled. In this work, conformal prediction is used to assess the calibration of the models. Deviations from the expected error may indicate that training and test data originate from different distributions. Exemplified on the Tox21 datasets, composed of chronologically released Tox21Train, Tox21Test and Tox21Score subsets, we observed that while internally valid models could be trained using cross-validation on Tox21Train, predictions on the external Tox21Score data resulted in higher error rates than expected. To improve the prediction on the external sets, a strategy exchanging the calibration set with more recent data, such as Tox21Test, has successfully been introduced. We conclude that conformal prediction can be used to diagnose data drifts and other issues related to model calibration. The proposed improvement strategy-exchanging the calibration data only-is convenient as it does not require retraining of the underlying model.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Applicability domain; Calibration plots; Conformal prediction; Data drifts; Tox21 datasets; Toxicity prediction

Year:  2021        PMID: 33926567     DOI: 10.1186/s13321-021-00511-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cheminform        ISSN: 1758-2946            Impact factor:   5.514


  19 in total

1.  Predicting the predictability: a unified approach to the applicability domain problem of QSAR models.

Authors:  Horvath Dragos; Marcou Gilles; Varnek Alexandre
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.956

2.  The Relative Importance of Domain Applicability Metrics for Estimating Prediction Errors in QSAR Varies with Training Set Diversity.

Authors:  Robert P Sheridan
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  Machine Learning in Drug Discovery.

Authors:  Günter Klambauer; Sepp Hochreiter; Matthias Rarey
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Does rational selection of training and test sets improve the outcome of QSAR modeling?

Authors:  Todd M Martin; Paul Harten; Douglas M Young; Eugene N Muratov; Alexander Golbraikh; Hao Zhu; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  ToxCast Chemical Landscape: Paving the Road to 21st Century Toxicology.

Authors:  Ann M Richard; Richard S Judson; Keith A Houck; Christopher M Grulke; Patra Volarath; Inthirany Thillainadarajah; Chihae Yang; James Rathman; Matthew T Martin; John F Wambaugh; Thomas B Knudsen; Jayaram Kancherla; Kamel Mansouri; Grace Patlewicz; Antony J Williams; Stephen B Little; Kevin M Crofton; Russell S Thomas
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.739

6.  The Tox21 10K Compound Library: Collaborative Chemistry Advancing Toxicology.

Authors:  Ann M Richard; Ruili Huang; Suramya Waidyanatha; Paul Shinn; Bradley J Collins; Inthirany Thillainadarajah; Christopher M Grulke; Antony J Williams; Ryan R Lougee; Richard S Judson; Keith A Houck; Mahmoud Shobair; Chihae Yang; James F Rathman; Adam Yasgar; Suzanne C Fitzpatrick; Anton Simeonov; Russell S Thomas; Kevin M Crofton; Richard S Paules; John R Bucher; Christopher P Austin; Robert J Kavlock; Raymond R Tice
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 3.739

7.  Impact assessment of the rational selection of training and test sets on the predictive ability of QSAR models.

Authors:  M F Andrada; E G Vega-Hissi; M R Estrada; J C Garro Martinez
Journal:  SAR QSAR Environ Res       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 3.000

8.  Chemical toxicity prediction for major classes of industrial chemicals: Is it possible to develop universal models covering cosmetics, drugs, and pesticides?

Authors:  Vinicius M Alves; Eugene N Muratov; Alexey Zakharov; Nail N Muratov; Carolina H Andrade; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 6.023

Review 9.  An Overview of Machine Learning and Big Data for Drug Toxicity Evaluation.

Authors:  Andy H Vo; Terry R Van Vleet; Rishi R Gupta; Michael J Liguori; Mohan S Rao
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 3.739

Review 10.  In Silico Prediction of Chemical Toxicity for Drug Design Using Machine Learning Methods and Structural Alerts.

Authors:  Hongbin Yang; Lixia Sun; Weihua Li; Guixia Liu; Yun Tang
Journal:  Front Chem       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 5.221

View more
  2 in total

1.  Studying and mitigating the effects of data drifts on ML model performance at the example of chemical toxicity data.

Authors:  Andrea Morger; Marina Garcia de Lomana; Ulf Norinder; Fredrik Svensson; Johannes Kirchmair; Miriam Mathea; Andrea Volkamer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Machine Learning Strategies When Transitioning between Biological Assays.

Authors:  Staffan Arvidsson McShane; Ernst Ahlberg; Tobias Noeske; Ola Spjuth
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.956

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.