The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of Selection of Molecular Descriptors on the Prediction of Blood−Brain Barrier Penetrating and Nonpenetrating Agents by Statistical Learning Methods
Abstract
The ability or inability of a drug to penetrate into the brain is a key consideration in drug design. Drugs for treating central nervous system (CNS) disorders need to be able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB). BBB nonpenetration is desirable for non-CNS-targeting drugs to minimize potential CNS-related side effects. Computational methods have been employed for the prediction of BBB-penetrating (BBB+) and -nonpenetrating (BBB-) agents at impressive accuracies of 75-92% and 60-80%, respectively. However, the majority of these studies give a substantially lower BBB- accuracy, and thus overall accuracy, than the BBB+ accuracy. This work examined whether proper selection of molecular descriptors can improve both the BBB- and the overall accuracies of statistical learning methods. The methods tested include logistic regression, linear discriminate analysis, k nearest neighbor, C4.5 decision tree, probabilistic neural network, and support vector machine. Molecular descriptors were selected by using a feature selection method, recursive feature elimination (RFE). Results by using 415 BBB+ and BBB- agents show that RFE substantially improves both the BBB- and the overall accuracy for all of the methods studied. This suggests that statistical learning methods combined with proper feature selection is potentially useful for facilitating a more balanced and improved prediction of BBB+ and BBB- agents.
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
Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines
Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S., & Vapnik, V. (2002) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1012487302797 · Cited by 9,954
Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme
Matthews, B. W. (1975) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure · doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 · Cited by 5,399
Handbook of Molecular Descriptors
Todeschini, R., & Consonni, V. (2000) · Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1002/9783527613106 · Cited by 4,107
Hawkins, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci0342472 · Cited by 2,522
Cited by
A Bayesian Approach to in Silico Blood-Brain Barrier Penetration Modeling
Martins, I. F., Teixeira, A. L., Pinheiro, L., & Falcao, A. O. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci300124c · Cited by 331
Carpenter, T. S., Kirshner, D. A., Lau, E. Y., Wong, S. E., Nilmeier, J. P., & Lightstone, F. C. (2014) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2014.06.024 · Cited by 306
Improved Classification of Blood-Brain-Barrier Drugs Using Deep Learning
Miao, R., Xia, L.-Y., Chen, H.-H., Huang, H.-H., & Liang, Y. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44773-4 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, H., Yap, C. W., Ung, C. Y., Xue, Y., Cao, Z. W., & Chen, Y. Z.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-08-10
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1376-1384
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2049334526
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.04
- 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.