Predicting the toxicity of chemical compounds via Hyperdimensional Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately and efficiently assessing the potential toxicity of chemical compounds is critical given their wide application across pharmaceutical, industrial, and environmental domains. Traditional toxicological evaluations, which predominantly rely on intensive in vitro and in vivo assays, are frequently slow and expensive. Here, we introduce a novel application of hyperdimensional computing (HDC), a recently developed computational paradigm inspired by the way the human brain works in encoding information, for the efficient classification of chemical compounds as either toxic or nontoxic. Our methodology employs Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) representations of compounds, drawing data from the comprehensive Tox21 dataset. We delineate a pipeline wherein these chemical structures are encoded into high-dimensional binary vectors, which subsequently serve as the foundation for training and classification within the HDC framework. This approach leverages HDC's inherent advantages, including its resilience to noise, parallel processing capabilities, and efficacy in identifying intricate patterns. This work demonstrates the viability of HDC as a computationally lightweight first-pass solution for preliminary toxicity screening. This research significantly contributes to the field of cheminformatics by validating HDC's potential in chemical property prediction, thereby facilitating accelerated identification of hazardous substances and mitigating the reliance on intensive laboratory experimentation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".