The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Support Vector Machine and Artificial Neural Network Systems for Drug/Nondrug Classification
Abstract
Support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural network (ANN) systems were applied to a drug/nondrug classification problem as an example of binary decision problems in early-phase virtual compound filtering and screening. The results indicate that solutions obtained by SVM training seem to be more robust with a smaller standard error compared to ANN training. Generally, the SVM classifier yielded slightly higher prediction accuracy than ANN, irrespective of the type of descriptors used for molecule encoding, the size of the training data sets, and the algorithm employed for neural network training. The performance was compared using various different descriptor sets and descriptor combinations based on the 120 standard Ghose-Crippen fragment descriptors, a wide range of 180 different properties and physicochemical descriptors from the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) package, and 225 topological pharmacophore (CATS) descriptors. For the complete set of 525 descriptors cross-validated classification by SVM yielded 82% correct predictions (Matthews cc = 0.63), whereas ANN reached 80% correct predictions (Matthews cc = 0.58). Although SVM outperformed the ANN classifiers with regard to overall prediction accuracy, both methods were shown to complement each other, as the sets of true positives, false positives (overprediction), true negatives, and false negatives (underprediction) produced by the two classifiers were not identical. The theory of SVM and ANN training is briefly reviewed.
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
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory
Vapnik, V. N. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 · Cited by 39,138
(2012) · Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_5195 · Cited by 19,370
Neural networks for pattern recognition
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-5500 · Cited by 18,538
A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition
Burges, C. J. C. (1998) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1023/a:1009715923555 · Cited by 16,429
Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & AU (1986) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001 · Cited by 15,686
An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods
Cristianini, N., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511801389 · Cited by 13,855
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
Russell, E. L., Chiang, L. H., & Braatz, R. D. (2000) · Advances in Industrial Control · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0409-4_3 · Cited by 7,862
Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm
Hagan, M. T., & Menhaj, M. B. (1994) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/72.329697 · Cited by 7,701
Cited by
QSAR Modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to?
Cherkasov, A., Muratov, E. N., Fourches, D., Varnek, A., Baskin, I. I., Cronin, M., Dearden, J., Gramatica, P., Martin, Y. C., Todeschini, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm4004285 · Cited by 2,164
Machine-learning approaches in drug discovery: methods and applications
Lavecchia, A. (2015) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2014.10.012 · Cited by 784
A Structure-Based Drug Discovery Paradigm
Batool, M., Ahmad, B., & Choi, S. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20112783 · Cited by 744
Deep Learning in Drug Discovery
Gawehn, E., Hiss, J. A., & Schneider, G. (2016) · Molecular Informatics · doi:10.1002/minf.201501008 · Cited by 723
Self-citationJiang, D., Wu, Z., Hsieh, C.-Y., Chen, G., Liao, B., Wang, Z., Shen, C., Cao, D., Wu, J., & Hou, T. (2021) · Journal of Cheminformatics · doi:10.1186/s13321-020-00479-8 · Cited by 664
Computational methods in drug discovery
Leelananda, S. P., & Lindert, S. (2016) · Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry · doi:10.3762/bjoc.12.267 · Cited by 639
Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics
Bender, A., & Glen, R. C. (2004) · Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry · doi:10.1039/b409813g · Cited by 614
The application of in silico drug-likeness predictions in pharmaceutical research
Tian, S., Wang, J., Li, Y., Li, D., Xu, L., & Hou, T. (2015) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.009 · Cited by 498
Yamanishi, Y., Kotera, M., Kanehisa, M., & Goto, S. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq176 · Cited by 470
Machine learning approaches and databases for prediction of drug–target interaction: a survey paper
Bagherian, M., Sabeti, E., Wang, K., Sartor, M. A., Nikolovska-Coleska, Z., & Najarian, K. (2021) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbz157 · Cited by 429
Frequent substructure-based approaches for classifying chemical compounds
Deshpande, M., Kuramochi, M., Wale, N., & Karypis, G. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2005.127 · Cited by 371
Automated classification of bird and amphibian calls using machine learning: A comparison of methods
Acevedo, M. A., Corrada-Bravo, C. J., Corrada-Bravo, H., Villanueva-Rivera, L. J., & Aide, T. M. (2009) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2009.06.005 · Cited by 317
Towards Multimodal Sarcasm Detection (An _Obviously_ Perfect Paper)
Castro, S., Hazarika, D., Pérez-Rosas, V., Zimmermann, R., Mihalcea, R., & Poria, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1455 · Cited by 243
Autonomous Molecular Design: Then and Now
Dimitrov, T., Kreisbeck, C., Becker, J. S., Aspuru-Guzik, A., & Saikin, S. K. (2019) · ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · doi:10.1021/acsami.9b01226 · Cited by 103
An automated PLS search for biologically relevant QSAR descriptors
Olah, M., Bologa, C., & Oprea, T. I. (2004) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-004-4060-8 · Cited by 91
Artificial intelligence facilitates drug design in the big data era
Wang, L., Ding, J., Pan, L., Cao, D., Jiang, H., & Ding, X. (2019) · Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems · doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2019.103850 · Cited by 80
Geppert, H., Horváth, T., Gärtner, T., Wrobel, S., & Bajorath, J. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci700461s · Cited by 63
Cherkasov, A. (2005) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/i6010063 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Byvatov, E., Fechner, U., Sadowski, J., & Schneider, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-09-27
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1882-1889
- ISSN
- 0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2116296021
- Cited by
- 565
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 21.85
- 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
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.
