Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 416

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical Assessment of QSAR Models of Environmental Toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: Focusing on Applicability Domain and Overfitting by Variable Selection

Open access
Tetko, Igor V., Sushko, Iurii, Pandey, Anil Kumar, Zhu, Hao, Tropsha, Alexander, Papa, Ester, Öberg, Tomas, Todeschini, Roberto, Fourches, Denis, Varnek, Alexandre·2008·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract

The estimation of the accuracy of predictions is a critical problem in QSAR modeling. The "distance to model" can be defined as a metric that defines the similarity between the training set molecules and the test set compound for the given property in the context of a specific model. It could be expressed in many different ways, e.g., using Tanimoto coefficient, leverage, correlation in space of models, etc. In this paper we have used mixtures of Gaussian distributions as well as statistical tests to evaluate six types of distances to models with respect to their ability to discriminate compounds with small and large prediction errors. The analysis was performed for twelve QSAR models of aqueous toxicity against T. pyriformis obtained with different machine-learning methods and various types of descriptors. The distances to model based on standard deviation of predicted toxicity calculated from the ensemble of models afforded the best results. This distance also successfully discriminated molecules with low and large prediction errors for a mechanism-based model developed using log P and the Maximum Acceptor Superdelocalizability descriptors. Thus, the distance to model metric could also be used to augment mechanistic QSAR models by estimating their prediction errors. Moreover, the accuracy of prediction is mainly determined by the training set data distribution in the chemistry and activity spaces but not by QSAR approaches used to develop the models. We have shown that incorrect validation of a model may result in the wrong estimation of its performance and suggested how this problem could be circumvented. The toxicity of 3182 and 48774 molecules from the EPA High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and EINECS (European chemical Substances Information System), respectively, was predicted, and the accuracy of prediction was estimated. The developed models are available online at http://www.qspr.org site.

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/ci800151m

Cites

37 of 37 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

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 416

Metadata

Authors
Tetko, I. V., Sushko, I., Pandey, A. K., Zhu, H., Tropsha, A., Papa, E., Öberg, T., Todeschini, R., Fourches, D., & Varnek, A.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2008-08-26
Volume
48
Issue
9
Pages
1733-1746
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W2089578131
Cited by
416
References
37
FWCI
28.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Critical Assessment of QSAR Models of Environmental Toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: Focusing on Applicability Domain and Overfitting by Variable Selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci800151m
The paper
Tetko, I. V., Sushko, I., Pandey, A. K., Zhu, H., Tropsha, A., Papa, E., Öberg, T., Todeschini, R., Fourches, D., & Varnek, A. (2008). Critical Assessment of QSAR Models of Environmental Toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: Focusing on Applicability Domain and Overfitting by Variable Selection. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci800151m

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.