A QSAR study for predicting malformation in zebrafish embryo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Developmental toxicity tests are extremely expensive, require a large number of animals, and are time-consuming. It is necessary to develop a new approach to simplify the analysis of developmental endpoints. One of these endpoints is malformation, and one group of ongoing methods for simplifying is in silico models. In this study, we aim to develop a quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) model and identify the best algorithm for predicting malformations, as well as the most important and effective physicochemical properties associated with malformation.Methods The dataset was extracted from a reliable database called COMPTOX. Physicochemical properties (descriptors) were calculated using Mordred and RDKit chemoinformatics software. The data were cleaned, preprocessed, and then split into training and testing sets. Machine learning algorithms, such as gradient boosting model (GBM) and logistic regression (LR), as well as deep learning models, including multilayer perceptron (MLP) and neural networks (NNs) trained with train set data and different sets of descriptors. The models were then validated with test set and various statistical parameters, such as Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC) and balanced accuracy (BAC) score, were used to compare the models.Results A set of descriptors containing with 78% AUC was identified as the best set of descriptors. Gradient boosting was determined to be the best algorithm with 78% predictive power.Conclusions The descriptors that were the most effective for developing models directly impact the mechanism of malformation, and GBM is the best model due to its MCC and BAC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".