Evaluation of quantitative structure property relationship algorithms for predicting plasma protein binding in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent of plasma protein binding is an important compound-specific property that influences a compound's pharmacokinetic behavior and is a critical input parameter for predicting exposure in physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. When experimentally determined fraction unbound in plasma (fup) data are not available, quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models can be used for prediction. Because available QSPR models were developed based on training sets containing pharmaceutical-like compounds, we compared their prediction accuracy for environmentally relevant and pharmaceutical compounds. Fup values were calculated using Ingle et al., Watanabe et al. and ADMET Predictor (Simulation Plus). The test set included 818 pharmaceutical and environmentally relevant compounds with fup values ranging from 0.01 to 1. Overall, the three QSPR models resulted in over-prediction of fup for highly binding compounds and under-prediction for low or moderately binding compounds. For highly binding compounds (0.01≤ fup ≤ 0.25), Watanabe et al. performed better with a lower mean absolute error (MAE) of 6.7% and a lower mean absolute relative prediction error (RPE) of 171.7 % than other methods. For low to moderately binding compounds, both Ingle et al. and ADMET Predictor performed better than Watanabe et al. with superior MAE and RPE values. The positive polar surface area, the number of basic functional groups and lipophilicity were the most important chemical descriptors for predicting fup. This study demonstrated that the prediction of fup was the most uncertain for highly binding compounds. This suggested that QSPR-predicted fup values should be used with caution in PBPK modeling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".