A Comparison of Methods for Modeling Quantitative Structure−Activity Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of methods are available for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). We examine the predictive accuracy of several methods applied to data sets of inhibitors for angiotensin converting enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, benzodiazepine receptor, cyclooxygenase-2, dihydrofolate reductase, glycogen phosphorylase b, thermolysin, and thrombin. Descriptors calculated with CoMFA, CoMSIA, EVA, HQSAR, and traditional 2D and 2.5D descriptors were used for developing models with partial least squares (PLS). In addition, the genetic function approximation algorithm, genetic PLS, and back-propagation neural networks were used for deriving models from 2.5D descriptors (i.e., 2D descriptors and 3D descriptors calculated from CORINA structures and Gasteiger-Marsili charges). Predictive accuracy was assessed using designed test sets. It was found that HQSAR generally performs as well as CoMFA and CoMSIA; other descriptor sets performed less well. When 2.5D descriptors were used, only neural network ensembles were found to be similarly or more predictive than PLS models. In addition, we show that many cross-validation procedures yield similar estimates of the interpolative accuracy of methods. However, the lack of correspondence between cross-validated and test set predictive accuracy for four sets underscores the benefit of using designed test sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".