Optimizing machine-learning models for mutagenicity prediction through better feature selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing a compound's mutagenicity using machine learning is an important activity in the drug discovery and development process. Traditional methods of mutagenicity detection, such as Ames test, are expensive and time and labor intensive. In this context, in silico methods that predict a compound mutagenicity with high accuracy are important. Recently, machine-learning (ML) models are increasingly being proposed to improve the accuracy of mutagenicity prediction. While these models are used in practice, there is further scope to improve the accuracy of these models. We hypothesize that choosing the right features to train the model can further lead to better accuracy. We systematically consider and evaluate a combination of novel structural and molecular features which have the maximal impact on the accuracy of models. We rigorously evaluate these features against multiple classification models (from classical ML models to deep neural network models). The performance of the models was assessed using 5- and 10-fold cross-validation and we show that our approach using the molecule structure, molecular properties, and structural alerts as feature sets successfully outperform the state-of-the-art methods for mutagenicity prediction for the Hansen et al. benchmark dataset with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93. More importantly, our framework shows how combining features could benefit model accuracy improvements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".