Cited by 712Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models

Golbraikh, Alexander, Shen, Min, Xiao, Zhiyan, Xiao, Yun-De, Lee, Kuo-Hsiung, Tropsha, Alexander·2003·Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

Abstract

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models are used increasingly to screen chemical databases and/or virtual chemical libraries for potentially bioactive molecules. These developments emphasize the importance of rigorous model validation to ensure that the models have acceptable predictive power. Using k nearest neighbors (kNN) variable selection QSAR method for the analysis of several datasets, we have demonstrated recently that the widely accepted leave-one-out (LOO) cross-validated R2 (q2) is an inadequate characteristic to assess the predictive ability of the models [Golbraikh, A., Tropsha, A. Beware of q2! J. Mol. Graphics Mod. 20, 269-276, (2002)]. Herein, we provide additional evidence that there exists no correlation between the values of q2 for the training set and accuracy of prediction (R2) for the test set and argue that this observation is a general property of any QSAR model developed with LOO cross-validation. We suggest that external validation using rationally selected training and test sets provides a means to establish a reliable QSAR model. We propose several approaches to the division of experimental datasets into training and test sets and apply them in QSAR studies of 48 functionalized amino acid anticonvulsants and a series of 157 epipodophyllotoxin derivatives with antitumor activity. We formulate a set of general criteria for the evaluation of predictive power of QSAR models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1025386326946

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Golbraikh, A., Shen, M., Xiao, Z., Xiao, Y.-D., Lee, K.-H., & Tropsha, A.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Tropsha, Alexander
Venue
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
Published
2003-02
Volume
17
Issue
2-4
Pages
241-253
ISSN
  • 0920-654X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-4951
OpenAlex
W1571439140
Cited by
712
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 30
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r03mh060328-02)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH60328)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
QSAR model validation, leave-one-out cross-validation, external validation, epipodophyllotoxin derivatives, anticancer activity, virtual screening
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Anticonvulsants, Models, Chemical, Software Validation, Molecular Structure, Databases, Factual, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship

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