Classifiers and their Metrics Quantified
Open accessAbstract
Molecular modeling frequently constructs classification models for the prediction of two‐class entities, such as compound bio(in)activity, chemical property (non)existence, protein (non)interaction, and so forth. The models are evaluated using well known metrics such as accuracy or true positive rates. However, these frequently used metrics applied to retrospective and/or artificially generated prediction datasets can potentially overestimate true performance in actual prospective experiments. Here, we systematically consider metric value surface generation as a consequence of data balance, and propose the computation of an inverse cumulative distribution function taken over a metric surface. The proposed distribution analysis can aid in the selection of metrics when formulating study design. In addition to theoretical analyses, a practical example in chemogenomic virtual screening highlights the care required in metric selection and interpretation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There are extreme situations where MCC cannot be defined or displays large fluctuations due to imbalanced outcomes in classification.
“Although being widely acknowledged as a reliable metric, there are situations - albeit extreme - where either MCC cannot be defined or it displays large fluctuations [45], due to imbalanced outcomes in the classification.”
From The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation (2020) · cites this paper as [45]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 82
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [20]J. D. Hunter, Comput. Sci. Eng. 2007, 9, 90– 95.
- [21]C. Cortes, V. Vapnik, Mach. Learn. 1995, 20, 273– 297.
- [22]L. Breiman, Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5– 32.
- [28]C. Rakers, D. Reker, J. B. Brown, J. Comput. Aided Chem. 2017, 8, 124– 142.
- [29]J. Cohen, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37– 46.
- Authors
- Brown, J. B.
- Affiliations
- Kyoto University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Brown, J. B.
- ORCID
- Brown, J. B.
- Venue
- Molecular Informatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1-2
- ISSN
- 1868-1743 (ISSN-L)
- 1868-1751
- PMC
- PMC5838539
- OpenAlex
- W2791704581
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 5.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Molecular Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Kyoto University Research Information Repository (Kyoto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (16H06306, 17 K20043)
- Kyoto University Ishizue research support program
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Keywords
- binary classification, class imbalance, quantile function, research design, bioactivity prediction, protein-protein interaction prediction, chemical property prediction
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Models, Chemical, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Small Molecule Libraries, Drug Discovery
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review