Application of a developed triple-classification machine learning model for carcinogenic prediction of hazardous organic chemicals to the US, EU, and WHO based on Chinese database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer, the second largest human disease, has become a major public health problem. The prediction of chemicals' carcinogenicity before their synthesis is crucial. In this paper, seven machine learning algorithms (i.e., Random Forest (RF), Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Complement Naive Bayes (CNB), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), XGBoost, and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP)) were used to construct the carcinogenicity triple classification prediction (TCP) model (i.e., 1A, 1B, Category 2). A total of 1444 descriptors of 118 hazardous organic chemicals were calculated by Discovery Studio 2020, Sybyl X-2.0 and PaDEL-Descriptor software. The constructed carcinogenicity TCP model was evaluated through five model evaluation indicators (i.e., Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1 Score and AUC). The model evaluation results show that Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1 Score and AUC evaluation indicators meet requirements (greater than 0.6). The accuracy of RF, LR, XGBoost, and MLP models for predicting carcinogenicity of Category 2 is 91.67%, 79.17%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. In addition, the constructed machine learning model in this study has potential for error correction. Taking XGBoost model as an example, the predicted carcinogenicity level of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (96-18-4) is Category 2, but the actual carcinogenicity level is 1B. But the difference between Category 2 and 1B is only 0.004, indicating that the XGBoost is one optimum model of the seven constructed machine learning models. Besides, results showed that functional groups like chlorine and benzene ring might influence the prediction of carcinogenic classification. Therefore, considering functional group characteristics of chemicals before constructing the carcinogenicity prediction model of organic chemicals is recommended. The predicted carcinogenicity of the organic chemicals using the optimum machine leaning model (i.e., XGBoost) was also evaluated and verified by the toxicokinetics. The RF and XGBoost TCP models constructed in this paper can be used for carcinogenicity detection before synthesizing new organic substances. It also provides technical support for the subsequent management of organic chemicals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".