MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217739880 · doi:10.1021/ci025639w

Development of Quantitative Structure−Activity Relationships and Classification Models for Anticonvulsant Activity of Hydantoin Analogues

2003· article· en· W2217739880 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey J. Sutherland, Donald F. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative structure–activity relationshipHydantoinMolecular descriptorTest setPrincipal component analysisMathematicsArtificial intelligenceRepresentation (politics)Metric (unit)Similarity (geometry)Pattern recognition (psychology)Biological systemMachine learningComputer scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification and QSAR analysis was performed on a large set of hydantoin derivatives with measured anticonvulsant activity in mice and rats. The classification set comprised 287 hydantoins having maximal electroshock (MES) activity expressed in qualitative form. A subset of 94 hydantoins with MES ED(50) values was used for QSAR analysis. Numerical descriptors were generated to encode topological, geometric/structural, electronic, and thermodynamic properties of molecules. Analyses were performed with training and test sets of diverse compounds selected using their representation in a principal component space. Cell- and distance metric-based selection methods were employed in this process. For QSAR, a genetic algorithm (GA) was used for selecting subsets of 5-9 descriptors that minimize the rms error on the training sets. The most predictive models have rms errors of 0.86 (r(2) = 0.64) and 0.73 (r(2) = 0.75) ln(1/ED(50)) units on the cell- and distance metric-derived test sets, respectively, and showed convergence in the selected descriptors. Classification models were developed using recursive partitioning (RP) and spline-fitting with a GA (SFGA), a novel method we have implemented. The most predictive RP and SFGA models have classification rates of 75% and 80% on the test sets; both methods produced models with similar discriminating features. For QSAR and classification, consensus schemes gave improved predictive accuracy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Information and Computer SciencesSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207