Cargando…

Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study

[Image: see text] Consensus strategies have been widely applied in many different scientific fields, based on the assumption that the fusion of several sources of information increases the outcome reliability. Despite the widespread application of consensus approaches, their advantages in quantitati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Valsecchi, Cecile, Grisoni, Francesca, Consonni, Viviana, Ballabio, Davide
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7997107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32073844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b01057
_version_ 1783670252123455488
author Valsecchi, Cecile
Grisoni, Francesca
Consonni, Viviana
Ballabio, Davide
author_facet Valsecchi, Cecile
Grisoni, Francesca
Consonni, Viviana
Ballabio, Davide
author_sort Valsecchi, Cecile
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Consensus strategies have been widely applied in many different scientific fields, based on the assumption that the fusion of several sources of information increases the outcome reliability. Despite the widespread application of consensus approaches, their advantages in quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling have not been thoroughly evaluated, mainly due to the lack of appropriate large-scale data sets. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and drawbacks of consensus approaches compared to single classification QSAR models. To this end, we used a data set of three properties (androgen receptor binding, agonism, and antagonism) for approximately 4000 molecules with predictions performed by more than 20 QSAR models, made available in a large-scale collaborative project. The individual QSAR models were compared with two consensus approaches, majority voting and the Bayes consensus with discrete probability distributions, in both protective and nonprotective forms. Consensus strategies proved to be more accurate and to better cover the analyzed chemical space than individual QSARs on average, thus motivating their widespread application for property prediction. Scripts and data to reproduce the results of this study are available for download.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7997107
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79971072021-03-29 Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study Valsecchi, Cecile Grisoni, Francesca Consonni, Viviana Ballabio, Davide J Chem Inf Model [Image: see text] Consensus strategies have been widely applied in many different scientific fields, based on the assumption that the fusion of several sources of information increases the outcome reliability. Despite the widespread application of consensus approaches, their advantages in quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling have not been thoroughly evaluated, mainly due to the lack of appropriate large-scale data sets. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and drawbacks of consensus approaches compared to single classification QSAR models. To this end, we used a data set of three properties (androgen receptor binding, agonism, and antagonism) for approximately 4000 molecules with predictions performed by more than 20 QSAR models, made available in a large-scale collaborative project. The individual QSAR models were compared with two consensus approaches, majority voting and the Bayes consensus with discrete probability distributions, in both protective and nonprotective forms. Consensus strategies proved to be more accurate and to better cover the analyzed chemical space than individual QSARs on average, thus motivating their widespread application for property prediction. Scripts and data to reproduce the results of this study are available for download. American Chemical Society 2020-02-19 2020-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7997107/ /pubmed/32073844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b01057 Text en Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Valsecchi, Cecile
Grisoni, Francesca
Consonni, Viviana
Ballabio, Davide
Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study
title Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study
title_full Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study
title_fullStr Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study
title_full_unstemmed Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study
title_short Consensus versus Individual QSARs in Classification: Comparison on a Large-Scale Case Study
title_sort consensus versus individual qsars in classification: comparison on a large-scale case study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7997107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32073844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b01057
work_keys_str_mv AT valsecchicecile consensusversusindividualqsarsinclassificationcomparisononalargescalecasestudy
AT grisonifrancesca consensusversusindividualqsarsinclassificationcomparisononalargescalecasestudy
AT consonniviviana consensusversusindividualqsarsinclassificationcomparisononalargescalecasestudy
AT ballabiodavide consensusversusindividualqsarsinclassificationcomparisononalargescalecasestudy