Cited by 1,325Computational Drug Discovery MethodsEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyMachine Learning in Materials Science

Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs.

Open access
Eriksson, Lennart, Jaworska, Joanna, Worth, Andrew P, Cronin, Mark T D, McDowell, Robert M, Gramatica, Paola·2003·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

This article provides an overview of methods for reliability assessment of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models in the context of regulatory acceptance of human health and environmental QSARs. Useful diagnostic tools and data analytical approaches are highlighted and exemplified. Particular emphasis is given to the question of how to define the applicability borders of a QSAR and how to estimate parameter and prediction uncertainty. The article ends with a discussion regarding QSAR acceptability criteria. This discussion contains a list of recommended acceptability criteria, and we give reference values for important QSAR performance statistics. Finally, we emphasize that rigorous and independent validation of QSARs is an essential step toward their regulatory acceptance and implementation.

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 · 10.1289/ehp.5758

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eriksson, L., Jaworska, J., Worth, A. P., Cronin, M. T. D., McDowell, R. M., & Gramatica, P.
Affiliations
Umetrics, Umeå, Sweden. lennart.eriksson@umetrics.com
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2003-08-01
Volume
111
Issue
10
Pages
1361-1375
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2086190989
Cited by
1,325
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 62
FWCI
35.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • IrInSubria (University of Insubria) (submittedVersion)
  • Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
Keywords
uncertainty estimation, applicability domain, regulatory acceptance, QSAR validation, forecast uncertainty, parameter uncertainty
MeSH terms
Environmental Exposure, Europe, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Regression Analysis, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Government Regulation

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