Analysis of implicit and explicit uncertainties in QSAR prediction of chemical toxicity: A case study of neurotoxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although uncertainties expressed in texts within QSAR studies can guide quantitative uncertainty estimations, they are often overlooked during uncertainty analysis. Using neurotoxicity as an example, this study developed a method to support analysis of implicitly and explicitly expressed uncertainties in QSAR modeling studies. Text content analysis was employed to identify implicit and explicit uncertainty indicators, whereafter uncertainties within the indicator-containing sentences were identified and systematically categorized according to 20 uncertainty sources. Our results show that implicit uncertainty was more frequent within most uncertainty sources (13/20), while explicit uncertainty was more frequent in only three sources, indicating that uncertainty is predominantly expressed implicitly in the field. The most highly cited sources included Mechanistic plausibility, Model relevance and Model performance, suggesting they constitute sources of most concern. The fact that other sources like Data balance were not mentioned, although it is recognized in the broader QSAR literature as an area of concern, demonstrates that the output from the type of analysis conducted here must be interpreted in the context of the broader QSAR literature before conclusions are drawn. Overall, the method established here can be applied in other QSAR modeling contexts and ultimately guide efforts targeted towards addressing the identified uncertainty sources. • Uncertainty analysis is important in fit-for-purpose evaluation QSAR • A method for analyzing implicit and explicit uncertainty sources was developed • Implicit uncertainty was expressed at a higher frequency than explicit uncertainty • The method has utility in guiding transparent uncertainty analysis in QSAR 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".