Conservative consensus QSAR approach for the prediction of rat acute oral toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensus approaches are applied in different quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling contexts based on the assumption that combining individual model predictions will improve prediction reliability. This study evaluated the performance of TEST, CATMoS and VEGA models for prediction of oral rat LD 50 , both individually and in consensus, across a dataset of 6,229 organic compounds. Predicted LD 50 values from the models were compared for each compound, and the lowest value was assigned as the output of the conservative consensus model (CCM). Predictive accuracy was then evaluated based on the agreement of predicted LD 50 -based GHS category assignments with those derived experimentally. The aim was to allow for the most conservative value to be identified. Results showed that CCM had the highest over-prediction rate at 37 %, compared to TEST (24 %), CATMoS (25 %) and VEGA (8 %). Meanwhile, its under-prediction rate was lowest at 2 %, relative to TEST (20 %), CATMoS (10 %) and VEGA (5 %). Due to the method applied, CCM was the most conservative across all GHS categories. Further, structural analysis demonstrated that no specific chemical classes or functional groups were consistently underpredicted or overpredicted. The utility of CCM lies in its ability to establish a foundation for contextualizing the general use of consensus modeling, in order to derive health-protective oral rat LD 50 estimates under conditions of uncertainty, especially where experimental data are limited or absent.
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 | 0.003 | 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".