Guided Ensemble Stacking Method for Predicting Biological Activities of Compounds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Machine learning (ML)‐driven quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling has gained significant attention for predicting compound biological activity based on compounds' structural, chemical, and physical properties because of the advancement of ML techniques. However, traditional ML‐QSAR models often suffer from biases due to algorithm selection and limitations in training data. Additionally, these approaches root in deducing biological activities purely from compounds' structural information and disregard their pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, a key factor contributing to the 15% failure rate in clinical trials, limiting their applicability in drug discovery. To address these challenges, we propose a guided ensemble‐based ML approach that integrates a supervised data preparation strategy with an ensemble stacking method, leveraging the strengths of multiple ML algorithms. By incorporating PK properties, our approach enhances prediction reliability. Specifically, we developed two ensemble stacking models: The classification model predicts the biological activity type, “inhibition” versus “activation,” based on compound features, while the regression model predicts bioactivity values. The classification model achieved an accuracy exceeding 0.85, while the regression model attained an R 2 above 0.77, demonstrating superior performance over traditional QSAR models. These results highlight the potential of our approach in improving drug discovery pipelines by enhancing predictive accuracy and addressing key QSAR limitations.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it