Lazar: Lazy structure-activity relationships for toxicity prediction

Predictive Toxicology

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 479-499

  Helma, Christoph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 12244266265     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (20)

1. Kramer S, Helma C. Machine learning and data mining. In:Helma S, ed. Predictive Toxicology. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2005.
2. Klopman G, Ivanov J, Saiakhov R, Chakravarti S. MC4PC- an artificial intelligence approach to the discovery of quantitative structure toxic activity relationships (QSTAR). Predictive Toxicology. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2005.
3. Marchal K, De Smet F, Engelen K, De Moor B. Computational biology and toxicogenomics. Predictive Toxicology. New York:Marcel Dekker, 2005.
4. Frasconi P. Neural networks and kernel machines for vector and structured data. Predictive Toxicology. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2005.
5. Eriksson L, Johansson E, Lundstedt T. Regression- and projection- based approaches in Predictive Toxicology. Predictive Toxicology. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.
6. Guba W. Description and representation of chemicals. Predictive Toxicology. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.
7. Klopman G. Artificial intelligence approach to structure-activity studies: computer automated structure evaluation of biological activity of organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 1984; 106:7315-7321.
8. Guyon I, Weston J, Barnhill S, Vapnik V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Machine Learning 2002; 46(1-3):389-422.
9. Reunanen J. Overfitting in making comparisons between variable selection methods. Machine Learning Res 2003; 3:1371-1382.
10. Helma C, Kramer S. A survey of the Predictive Toxicology challenge. Bioinformatics 2003; 19:1179-1182.
11. Benigni R, Giuliani A. Putting the Predictive Toxicology challenge into prespective: reflections on the results. Bioinformatics 2003; 19:1194-1200.
12. Kramer S, Frank E, Helma C. Fragment generation and support vector machines for inducing SARs. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2002; 13:509-523.
13. Mitchell TM. Machine Learning. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997.
14. Helma C, Kramer S, DeRaedt L. The molecular feature miner MolFea. In: Hicks M, Kettner, eds. Proceedings of the Beilstein Workshop 2002: Molecular Informatics: Confronting Complexity. Frankfurt: Beilstein Institut, 2003:79-93.
15. Piatetsky-Shapiro G. Discovery, analysis, and presentation of strong rules. In: Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Frawley WJ, eds. Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press=the MIT Press, 1991:229-248.
16. Gold LS, Zeiger E. Handbook of Carcinogenic Potency and Genotoxicity Databases. CRC Press, 1997.
17. Weininger D. SMILES, a chemical language and information system 1. Introduction and encoding rules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1988; 28:31-36.
18. Perotta A, Malacarne D, Taningher M, Pesenti R, Paolucci R, Parodi S. A computerized connectivity approach for analyzing the structural basis of mutagenicity in Salmonella and its relationship with rodent carcinogenicity. Environ Mol Mutagen 1996; 28:31-50.
19. Klopman G, Rosenkranz HS. Testing by artificial intelligence:computational alternatives to the determination of mutagenicity. Mutat Res 1992; 272:59-71.
20. Helma C, Kramer S, DeRaedt L. Data mining and machine learning techniques for the identfication of mutagenicity inducing substructures and structure-Activity relationships of noncongeneric compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004; 44:1402-1411.