The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Stepwise Approach for Defining the Applicability Domain of SAR and QSAR Models
Abstract
A stepwise approach for determining the model applicability domain is proposed. Four stages are applied to account for the diversity and complexity of the current SAR/QSAR models, reflecting their mechanistic rationality (including metabolic activation of chemicals) and transparency. General parametric requirements are imposed in the first stage, specifying in the domain only those chemicals that fall in the range of variation of the physicochemical properties of the chemicals in the training set. The second stage defines the structural similarity between chemicals that are correctly predicted by the model. The structural neighborhood of atom-centered fragments is used to determine this similarity. The third stage in defining the domain is based on a mechanistic understanding of the modeled phenomenon. Here, the model domain combines the reliability of specific reactive groups hypothesized to cause the effect and the domain of explanatory variables determining the parametric requirements in order for functional groups to elicit their reactivity. Finally, the reliability of simulated metabolism (metabolites, pathways, and maps) is taken into account in assessing the reliability of predictions, if metabolic activation of chemicals is a part of the (Q)SAR model. Some of the stages of the proposed approach for defining the model domain can be eliminated depending on the availability and quality of the experimental data used to derive the model, the specificity of (Q)SARs, and the goals of their ultimate application. The performance of the proposed definition of the model domain is tested using several examples of (Q)SARs that have been externally validated, including models for predicting acute toxicity, skin sensitization, and biodegradation. The results clearly showed that credibility in predictions of QSAR models for chemicals belonging to their domain is much higher than for chemicals outside this domain.
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
Cited by
In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity
Raies, A. B., & Bajic, V. B. (2016) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1240 · Cited by 744
Authority, E. F. S. (2013) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295 · Cited by 587
Schüürmann, G., Ebert, R.-U., Chen, J., Wang, B., & Kühne, R. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci800253u · Cited by 531
Time-Split Cross-Validation as a Method for Estimating the Goodness of Prospective Prediction.
Sheridan, R. P. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci400084k · Cited by 376
In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences☆
Valerio Jr., L. G. (2009) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.taap.2009.08.022 · Cited by 296
Metadata
- Authors
- Dimitrov, S., Dimitrova, G., Pavlov, T., Dimitrova, N., Patlewicz, G., Niemela, J., & Mekenyan, O.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-06-22
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 839-849
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2176009755
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.94
- 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: A Stepwise Approach for Defining the Applicability Domain of SAR and QSAR Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci0500381
- The paper
- Dimitrov, S., Dimitrova, G., Pavlov, T., Dimitrova, N., Patlewicz, G., Niemela, J., & Mekenyan, O. (2005). A Stepwise Approach for Defining the Applicability Domain of SAR and QSAR Models. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci0500381
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.