Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On Selection of Training and Test Sets for the Development of Predictive QSAR models

Leonard, J. Thomas, Roy, Kunal·2006·QSAR & Combinatorial Science

Abstract

The development of predictive QSAR models depends not only on the statistical method but also on the algorithm used for the selection of training and test sets. Here, we describe the validation of QSAR models for three data sets with different sizes (n=35, 56 and 87) based on random division, sorted biological activity data and K‐means clusters for the factor scores of the original variable matrix along with/without biological activity values. When the training and test sets were generated by random division or by the activity‐range algorithm, predictive models were not obtained in most of the cases. In case of random division of the data sets into training and test sets, there is no correlation between internal and external validation statistics. However, good external validation statistics were obtained when training and test sets were selected based on K‐means clusters of factor scores of the descriptor space along with/without the biological activity values. So, the selection of training and test sets should be based on the proximity of the representative points of the test set to representative points of the training set in the multidimensional descriptor space. The concept of closeness is based on the general assumption underlying all QSAR theories: similar compounds have similar activities. Thus, if one wishes to validate a QSAR model, the points of the test set must be close to the points of the training set in the multidimensional descriptor space. Based on the results of several methods for the division of the training and test sets, we propose that K‐means‐cluster‐based division of training and prediction sets can be used as a reliable method of division of data set into training and test sets for developing predictive QSAR models.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/qsar.200510161

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Metadata

Authors
Leonard, J. T., & Roy, K.
Venue
QSAR & Combinatorial Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
235-251
ISSN
  • 1611-020X (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-0218
OpenAlex
W2147084679
Cited by
257
References
19
FWCI
10.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On Selection of Training and Test Sets for the Development of Predictive QSAR models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/qsar.200510161
The paper
Leonard, J. T., & Roy, K. (2006). On Selection of Training and Test Sets for the Development of Predictive QSAR models. QSAR & Combinatorial Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/qsar.200510161

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.