Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 565

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

Byvatov, Evgeny, Fechner, Uli, Sadowski, Jens, Schneider, Gisbert·2003·Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
DOI 10.1021/ci0341161
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ci0341161

Cites

42 of 42 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

Cited by

See all 565

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)
DOI
10.1021/ci0341161
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.