Solving the multiple instance problem with axis-parallel rectangles

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 89, Issue 1-2, 1997, Pages 31-71

  Dietterich, Thomas G ^a   Lathrop, Richard H ^b   Lozano Pérez, Tomás ^c,d  

^a Oregon State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Arris Pharmaceutical Corporation   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug design; Machine learning; Structure activity relationships

Indexed keywords

EFFICIENCY; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; PERSONNEL TRAINING; VECTORS;

INSTANCE PROBLEM;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 0030649484     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0004-3702(96)00034-3     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. D.W. Aha, Generalizing from case studies: a case study, in: Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning, Aberdeen (1992) 1-10.
2. M.G.J. Beets, Structure-Activity Relationships in Human Chemoreception (Applied Science Publishers, London, 1987).
3. I.B. Bersuker, A.S. Dimoglo, M.Yu. Gorbachov, P.F. Vlad and M. Pesaro, New J. Chem. 15 (1991) 307-320.
4. C.J. Blankley, Introduction: a review of QSAR methodology, in: J.G. Topliss, ed., Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships of Drugs (Academic Press, New York, 1983).
5. B.G. Buchanan and T.M. Mitchell, Model-directed learning of production rules, in: D.A. Waterman and F. Hayes-Roth, eds., Pattern-Directed Inference Systems (Academic Press, New York, 1978) 297-312.
6. W.C. Chang, W.C. Guida and J. Still, An internal coordinate Monte Carlo method for searching conformational space, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 111 (1989) 4379-4386.
7. M.L. Connolly, Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids, Science 221 (1983) 709-713.
8. R.D. Cramer III, D.E. Patterson and J.D. Bunce, Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA), 1: Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110 (1988) 5959-5967.
9. G.M. Crippen and T.F. Havel, Distance Geometry and Molecular Conformation (Wiley, New York, 1988).
10. T.G. Dietterich and N.S. Flann, An inductive approach to solving the imperfect theory problem, Tech. Rept. No. 88-30-2, Department of Computer Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR (1988).
11. T.G. Dietterich, A.N. Jain, R. Lathrop and T. Lozano-Pérez, A comparison of dynamic reposing and tangent distance for drug activity prediction, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 6 (Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, CA, 1994) 216-223.
12. T.G. Dietterich and R.S. Michalski, Inductive learning of structural descriptions: evaluation criteria and comparative review of selected methods, Artif. Intell. 16 (1981) 257-294.
13. M.L. Engle and C. Burks, Artificially generated data sets for testing DNA sequence assembly algorithms, Genomics 16 (1993) 286-288.
14. C. Fehr, J. Galindo, R. Haubrichs and R. Perret, New aromatic musk odorants: design and synthesis, Helv. Chim. Acta 72 (1989) 1537-1553.
15. J. H. Friedman and W. Stuetzle, Projection pursuit regression, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 76 (1981) 817-823.
16. A.C. Good, S.-S. So and W.G. Richards, Structure-activity relationships from molecular similarity matrices, J. Med. Chem. 36 (1993) 433-438.
17. C.L. Ham and P.C. Jurs, Structure-activity studies of musk odorants using pattern recognition: monocyclic nitrobenzenes, Chem. Senses 10 (1985) 491-505.
18. C. Hansch and T. Fujita, ρ-σ-π analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 86 (1964) 1616-1626.
19. C. Hansch and A.J. Leo, Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology (Wiley/Interscience, New York, 1979).
20. D. Haussler, Quantifying inductive bias: AI learning algorithms and Valiant's learning framework, Artif. Intell. 36 (1988) 177-222.
21. D. Haussler, Learning conjunctive concepts in structural domains, Mach. Learn. 4 (1989) 7-40.
22. A.N. Jain, T.G. Dietterich, R.H. Lathrop, D. Chapman, R.E. Critchlow, B.E. Bauer, TA. Webster and T. Lozano-Pérez, Compass: a shape-based machine learning tool for drug design, J. Comput. Aided Molecular Design 8 (1994) 635-652.
23. A.N. Jain, N.L. Harris and J.Y. Park, Quantitative binding site model generation: Compass applied to multiple chemotypes targeting the 5HT1A receptor, J. Med. Chem. 38 (1995) 1295-1307.
24. A.N. Jain, K. Koile, B. Bauer and D. Chapman, Compass: predicting biological activities from molecular surface properties. Performance comparisons on a steroid benchmark, J. Med. Chem. 37 (1994) 2315-2327.
25. M.G. Koehler, K. Rowberg-Schaefer and A.J. Hopfinger, A molecular shape analysis and quantitative structure-activity relationship investigation of some triazine-antifolate inhibitors of Leishmania dihydrofolate reductase, Archives Biochem. Biophys. 266 (1988) 152-161.
26. I.D. Kuntz, Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery, Science 257 (1992) 1078-1082.
27. R. Lindsay, B. Buchanan, E. Feigenbaum and J. Lederberg, Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Organic Chemistry: The Dendral Project (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980).
28. P.M. Murphy and D.W. Aha, UCI repository of machine learning databases [Machine-readable data repository], Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA (1994).
29. J.N. Narvaez, B.K. Lavine and P.C. Jurs, Structure-activity studies of musk odorants using pattern recognition: bicyclo-and tricyclo-benzenoids, Chem. Senses 11 (1986) 145-156.
30. B.W. Silverman, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis (Chapman and Hall, London, 1986).
31. P. Simard, Y. Le Cun and J. Denker, Efficient pattern recognition using a new transformation distance, in: S.J. Hanson, J.D. Cowan and C.L. Giles, eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5 (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1993) 50-58.
32. C. Soderlund and C. Burks, GRAM and genfragll: simulating and solving the single-digest partial restriction map problem, Comput. Appl. Biosci. 10 (1994) 349-358.
33. L. Ståhle and S. Wold, Multivariate data analysis and experimental design in biomedical research, in: G.P. Ellis and G.B. West, eds., Progress in Medicinal Chemistry 25 (Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1988) 291-323.
34. W.C. Still, Macromodel program (distributed by Columbia University, New York).
35. E.T. Theimer and J.T. Davies, Olfaction, musk odor, and molecular properties, J. Agr. Food Chem. 15 (1967) 6-14.
36. A. Vedani, P. Zbinden and J.P. Snyder, Pseudo-receptor modeling: a new concept for the three-dimensional construction of receptor binding sites, J. Receptor Res. 13 (1993) 163-177.
37. S.J. Weiner, P.A. Kollman, D.A. Case, U.C. Singh, C. Ghio, G. Alagona, S. Profeta Jr and P. Weiner, A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106 (1984) 765-784.
38. S.J. Weiner, P.A. Kollman, D.J. Nguyen and D.A. Case, An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids, J. Comput. Chem. 7 (1986) 230-252.