2018
DOI: 10.1002/minf.201800029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Misleading Use of for QSAR Model Comparison

Abstract: Quantitative Structure - Activity Relationship (QSAR) models play a central role in medicinal chemistry, toxicology and computer-assisted molecular design, as well as a support for regulatory decisions and animal testing reduction. Thus, assessing their predictive ability becomes an essential step for any prospective application. Many metrics have been proposed to estimate the model predictive ability of QSARs, which have created confusion on how models should be evaluated and properly compared. Recently, we s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
33
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The values for various internal validation parameters such as r 2 cv , CCC cv , RMSE cv , MAE cv , CCC cv , and Q 2 LMO vindicate the statistical robustness of the QSAR model. The high values of r 2 ex , Q 2 F 1 , Q 2 F 2 , Q 2 F 3 , and CCC ex confirm the external predictive ability of the model [42][43][44][45][46][47][48].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…The values for various internal validation parameters such as r 2 cv , CCC cv , RMSE cv , MAE cv , CCC cv , and Q 2 LMO vindicate the statistical robustness of the QSAR model. The high values of r 2 ex , Q 2 F 1 , Q 2 F 2 , Q 2 F 3 , and CCC ex confirm the external predictive ability of the model [42][43][44][45][46][47][48].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…The symbols have their usual meaning, which are available in the supplementary material also. Gramatica, 2011, 2012;Consonni et al, 2009;Consonni et al, 2019;Gramatica, 2013;Gramatica et al, 2012). In short, the developed QSAR models fulfill the recommended threshold values for many internal and external validation parameters.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Further external validation of the modified model was performed using QF32 metric [30, 31] according to the following equation: truerightQF32=1i=1nTESTyitrueŷi2/nTESTj=1nTRyjtruey¯TR2/nTR=1RMSEP2sTR2where y i is the experimental response of the i th test molecule, ŷi the corresponding predicted response, y j is the experimental response of the j th training molecule, and y¯TR is the average response of the training set; n TR and n TEST are the number of training and test molecules, respectively. QF32 can also be expressed using the ratio of the square of RMSEP over sTR2, which is a biased estimate of the training data variance representing the training response distribution around the mean and acts as a scaling factor of the average model error.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%