The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On Two Novel Parameters for Validation of Predictive QSAR Models
Open accessAbstract
Validation is a crucial aspect of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling. The present paper shows that traditionally used validation parameters (leave-one-out Q2 for internal validation and predictive R2 for external validation) may be supplemented with two novel parameters rm2 and Rp2 for a stricter test of validation. The parameter rm2(overall) penalizes a model for large differences between observed and predicted values of the compounds of the whole set (considering both training and test sets) while the parameter Rp2 penalizes model R2 for large differences between determination coefficient of nonrandom model and square of mean correlation coefficient of random models in case of a randomization test. Two other variants of rm2 parameter, rm2(LOO) and rm2(test), penalize a model more strictly than Q2 and R2pred respectively. Three different data sets of moderate to large size have been used to develop multiple models in order to indicate the suitability of the novel parameters in QSAR studies. The results show that in many cases the developed models could satisfy the requirements of conventional parameters (Q2 and R2pred) but fail to achieve the required values for the novel parameters rm2 and Rp2. Moreover, these parameters also help in identifying the best models from among a set of comparable models. Thus, a test for these two parameters is suggested to be a more stringent requirement than the traditional validation parameters to decide acceptability of a predictive QSAR model, especially when a regulatory decision is involved.
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
Golbraikh, A., & Tropsha, A. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling · doi:10.1016/s1093-3263(01)00123-1 · Cited by 3,735 · cited 1×
“Only recently, validation of QSAR models has received considerable attention [7-19].”
Hawkins, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci0342472 · Cited by 2,522
Cited by
Roy, K., Chakraborty, P., Mitra, I., Ojha, P. K., Kar, S., & Das, R. N. (2013) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.23231 · Cited by 466
Self-citationMitra, I., Saha, A., & Roy, K. (2010) · Molecular Simulation · doi:10.1080/08927022.2010.503326 · Cited by 295
Self-citationDeep learning allows genome-scale prediction of Michaelis constants from structural features
Kroll, A., Engqvist, M. K. M., Heckmann, D., & Lercher, M. J. (2021) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001402 · Cited by 132
Plaza, M., & Marina, M. L. (2025) · Microchemical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.microc.2025.113366 · Cited by 23
Huang, Q., Wu, Y., Wang, L., Lin, J., Li, Y., Zeng, M., & Li, M. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c00799
Metadata
- Authors
- Pratim Roy, P., Paul, S., Mitra, I., & Roy, K.
- Venue
- Molecules
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2009-04-29
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1660-1701
- ISSN
- 1420-3049 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023782921
- Cited by
- 563
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: On Two Novel Parameters for Validation of Predictive QSAR Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/molecules14051660
- The paper
- Pratim Roy, P., Paul, S., Mitra, I., & Roy, K. (2009). On Two Novel Parameters for Validation of Predictive QSAR Models. Molecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules14051660
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.