Cargando…
Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set
The increase of publicly available bioactivity data in recent years has fueled and catalyzed research in chemogenomics, data mining, and modeling approaches. As a direct result, over the past few years a multitude of different methods have been reported and evaluated, such as target fishing, nearest...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555960/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29086168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017-0232-0 |
_version_ | 1783256977254645760 |
---|---|
author | Lenselink, Eelke B. ten Dijke, Niels Bongers, Brandon Papadatos, George van Vlijmen, Herman W. T. Kowalczyk, Wojtek IJzerman, Adriaan P. van Westen, Gerard J. P. |
author_facet | Lenselink, Eelke B. ten Dijke, Niels Bongers, Brandon Papadatos, George van Vlijmen, Herman W. T. Kowalczyk, Wojtek IJzerman, Adriaan P. van Westen, Gerard J. P. |
author_sort | Lenselink, Eelke B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The increase of publicly available bioactivity data in recent years has fueled and catalyzed research in chemogenomics, data mining, and modeling approaches. As a direct result, over the past few years a multitude of different methods have been reported and evaluated, such as target fishing, nearest neighbor similarity-based methods, and Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR)-based protocols. However, such studies are typically conducted on different datasets, using different validation strategies, and different metrics. In this study, different methods were compared using one single standardized dataset obtained from ChEMBL, which is made available to the public, using standardized metrics (BEDROC and Matthews Correlation Coefficient). Specifically, the performance of Naïve Bayes, Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, Logistic Regression, and Deep Neural Networks was assessed using QSAR and proteochemometric (PCM) methods. All methods were validated using both a random split validation and a temporal validation, with the latter being a more realistic benchmark of expected prospective execution. Deep Neural Networks are the top performing classifiers, highlighting the added value of Deep Neural Networks over other more conventional methods. Moreover, the best method (‘DNN_PCM’) performed significantly better at almost one standard deviation higher than the mean performance. Furthermore, Multi-task and PCM implementations were shown to improve performance over single task Deep Neural Networks. Conversely, target prediction performed almost two standard deviations under the mean performance. Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, and Logistic Regression performed around mean performance. Finally, using an ensemble of DNNs, alongside additional tuning, enhanced the relative performance by another 27% (compared with unoptimized ‘DNN_PCM’). Here, a standardized set to test and evaluate different machine learning algorithms in the context of multi-task learning is offered by providing the data and the protocols. [Figure: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13321-017-0232-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5555960 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55559602017-08-29 Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set Lenselink, Eelke B. ten Dijke, Niels Bongers, Brandon Papadatos, George van Vlijmen, Herman W. T. Kowalczyk, Wojtek IJzerman, Adriaan P. van Westen, Gerard J. P. J Cheminform Research Article The increase of publicly available bioactivity data in recent years has fueled and catalyzed research in chemogenomics, data mining, and modeling approaches. As a direct result, over the past few years a multitude of different methods have been reported and evaluated, such as target fishing, nearest neighbor similarity-based methods, and Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR)-based protocols. However, such studies are typically conducted on different datasets, using different validation strategies, and different metrics. In this study, different methods were compared using one single standardized dataset obtained from ChEMBL, which is made available to the public, using standardized metrics (BEDROC and Matthews Correlation Coefficient). Specifically, the performance of Naïve Bayes, Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, Logistic Regression, and Deep Neural Networks was assessed using QSAR and proteochemometric (PCM) methods. All methods were validated using both a random split validation and a temporal validation, with the latter being a more realistic benchmark of expected prospective execution. Deep Neural Networks are the top performing classifiers, highlighting the added value of Deep Neural Networks over other more conventional methods. Moreover, the best method (‘DNN_PCM’) performed significantly better at almost one standard deviation higher than the mean performance. Furthermore, Multi-task and PCM implementations were shown to improve performance over single task Deep Neural Networks. Conversely, target prediction performed almost two standard deviations under the mean performance. Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, and Logistic Regression performed around mean performance. Finally, using an ensemble of DNNs, alongside additional tuning, enhanced the relative performance by another 27% (compared with unoptimized ‘DNN_PCM’). Here, a standardized set to test and evaluate different machine learning algorithms in the context of multi-task learning is offered by providing the data and the protocols. [Figure: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13321-017-0232-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2017-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5555960/ /pubmed/29086168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017-0232-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Lenselink, Eelke B. ten Dijke, Niels Bongers, Brandon Papadatos, George van Vlijmen, Herman W. T. Kowalczyk, Wojtek IJzerman, Adriaan P. van Westen, Gerard J. P. Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set |
title | Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set |
title_full | Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set |
title_fullStr | Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set |
title_full_unstemmed | Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set |
title_short | Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set |
title_sort | beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a chembl bioactivity benchmark set |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555960/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29086168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017-0232-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lenselinkeelkeb beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset AT tendijkeniels beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset AT bongersbrandon beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset AT papadatosgeorge beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset AT vanvlijmenhermanwt beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset AT kowalczykwojtek beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset AT ijzermanadriaanp beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset AT vanwestengerardjp beyondthehypedeepneuralnetworksoutperformestablishedmethodsusingachemblbioactivitybenchmarkset |