The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decision Forest: Combining the Predictions of Multiple Independent Decision Tree Models
Abstract
The techniques of combining the results of multiple classification models to produce a single prediction have been investigated for many years. In earlier applications, the multiple models to be combined were developed by altering the training set. The use of these so-called resampling techniques, however, poses the risk of reducing predictivity of the individual models to be combined and/or over fitting the noise in the data, which might result in poorer prediction of the composite model than the individual models. In this paper, we suggest a novel approach, named Decision Forest, that combines multiple Decision Tree models. Each Decision Tree model is developed using a unique set of descriptors. When models of similar predictive quality are combined using the Decision Forest method, quality compared to the individual models is consistently and significantly improved in both training and testing steps. An example will be presented for prediction of binding affinity of 232 chemicals to the estrogen receptor.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Breiman, L. (1996) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00058655 · Cited by 16,325
Bates, J. M., & Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/jors.1969.103 · Cited by 3,201
An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data
Kass, G. V. (1980) · Applied Statistics · doi:10.2307/2986296 · Cited by 2,880
A Novel Method for Building Regression Tree Models for QSAR Based on Artificial Ant Colony Systems
Izrailev, S., & Agrafiotis, D. (2001) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci000336s · Cited by 66
Cited by
Netzeva, T. I., Worth, A. P., Aldenberg, T., Benigni, R., Cronin, M. T. D., Gramatica, P., Jaworska, J. S., Kahn, S., Klopman, G., Marchant, C. A., et al. (2005) · Alternatives to Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1177/026119290503300209 · Cited by 836
Self-citationDeep Learning for Drug-Induced Liver Injury
Xu, Y., Dai, Z., Chen, F., Gao, S., Pei, J., & Lai, L. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00238 · Cited by 382
CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project
Mansouri, K., Abdelaziz, A., Rybacka, A., Roncaglioni, A., Tropsha, A., Varnek, A., Zakharov, A., Worth, A., Richard, A. M., Grulke, C. M., et al. (2016) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1510267 · Cited by 375
“…partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) (Frank and Friedman 1993; Nouwen et al. 1997), decision forest (DF) (Hong et al. 2005, 2004; Tong et al. 2003; Xie et al. 2005), three-dimensional (3D) quantitative spectral data–activity relationship (QSDAR) (Beger et al. 2001; Beger and…”
Self-citationEarly ADME/T Predictions: Toy or Tool?
Tetko, I. V., & Oprea, T. I. (2008) · Chemoinformatics Approaches to Virtual Screening · doi:10.1039/9781847558879-00240 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Tong, W., Hong, H., Fang, H., Xie, Q., & Perkins, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-02-04
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 525-531
- ISSN
- 0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5142
- OpenAlex
- W2021070595
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 13.84
- 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: Decision Forest: Combining the Predictions of Multiple Independent Decision Tree Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci020058s
- The paper
- Tong, W., Hong, H., Fang, H., Xie, Q., & Perkins, R. (2003). Decision Forest: Combining the Predictions of Multiple Independent Decision Tree Models. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci020058s
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.