How not to develop a quantitative structure-activity or structure-property relationship (QSAR/QSPR)

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 20, Issue 3-4, 2009, Pages 241-266

  Dearden, J C ^a   Cronin, M T D ^a   Kaiser, K L E ^b  

^a LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b TerraBase Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

Data; Descriptors; Errors; OECD principles; QSAR QSPR; Statistics

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; MOLECULAR GRAPHICS;

DATA; DESCRIPTORS; OECD PRINCIPLE; QSAR/QSPR; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY; STRUCTURE-PROPERTIES RELATIONSHIPS;

ERRORS;

METHODOLOGY; PHARMACOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; TOXICOLOGY;

PHARMACOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 67949118928     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10629360902949567     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. C. Hansch, P.P. Maloney, T. Fujita, and R.M. Muir, Correlation of biological activity of phenoxyacetic acids with Hammett substituent constants and partition coefficients, Nature 194 (1962), pp. 178-180.
2. E.J. Mills, On melting point and boiling point as related to composition, Phil Mag. Ser. 5 17 (1884), pp. 173-187.
3. D. Livingstone, Data Analysis for Chemists, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1995.
4. J.D. Walker, J.C. Dearden, T.W. Schultz, J. Jaworska, and M.H.I. Comber, QSARs for new practitioners, in QSARs for Pollution Prevention, Toxicity Screening, Risk Assessment, and Web Applications, J.D. Walker, ed., SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, 2003, pp. 3-18.
5. J.D. Walker, J. Jaworska, M.H.I. Comber, T.W. Schultz, and J.C. Dearden, Guidelines for developing and using quantitative structure-activity relationships, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1653-1665.
6. M.T.D. Cronin and T.W. Schultz, Pitfalls in QSAR, J. Theoret. Chem. (Theochem) 622 (2003), pp. 39-51.
7. L. Eriksson, J. Jaworska, A.P. Worth, M.T.D. Cronin, R.M. McDowell, and P. Gramatica, Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs, Environ. Health Persp. 111 (2003), pp. 1361-1375.
8. D.J. Livingstone, Building QSAR models: a practical guide, in Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate, M.T.D. Cronin and D.J. Livingstone, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2004, pp. 151-170.
9. A. Tropsha and A. Golbraikh, Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening, Curr. Pharmaceutical Design 13 (2007), pp. 3494-3504.
10. A. Golbraikh and A. Tropsha, Beware of q2!, J. Mol. Graph. Modell. 20 (2002), pp. 269-276.
11. P. Gramatica, Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external, QSAR Comb. Sci. 26 (2007), pp. 694-701.
12. J.S. Jaworska, M. Comber, C. Auer, and C.J. Van Leeuwen, Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoints, Environ. Health Persp. 111 (2003), pp. 1358-1360.
13. OECD Principles for the Validation of (Q)SARs, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/37/37849783.pdf (last accessed November 2008).
14. OECD, Environment Directorate, Joint Meeting of The Chemicals Committee and The Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2004doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00009192/$FILE /JT00176183.PDF (last accessed November 2008).
15. S.H. Unger and C. Hansch, On model building in structure-activity relationships. A reexamination of adrenergic blocking activity of β-halo- β-arylalkylamines, J. Med. Chem. 16 (1973), pp. 745-749.
16. G.I. Poda, D.P. Landsittel, K. Brumbaugh, D.S. Sharp, H.F. Frasch, and E. Demchuk, Random sampling or 'random' model in skin flux measurements? [Commentary on ''Investigation of the mechanism of flux across human skin in vitro by quantitative structure-permeability relationships''], Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 14 (2001), pp. 197-200.
17. K. Yoshida and T. Niwa, Quantitative structure-activity studies on inhibition of HERG potassium channels, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), pp. 1371-1378.
18. A. Coi, I. Massarelli, L. Murgia, M. Saraceno, V. Calderone, and A.M. Bianucci, Prediction of hERG potassium channel affinity by the CODESSA approach, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 14 (2006), pp. 3153-3159.
19. S.R. Johnson and P.C. Jurs, Prediction of acute mammalian toxicity from molecular structure for a diverse set of substituted anilines using regression analysis and computational neural networks, in Computer-Assisted Lead Finding and Optimization: Current Tools for Medicinal Chemistry, H. van de Waterbeemd, B. Testa, and G. Folkers, eds., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 1997, pp. 29-48.
20. CDC, Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/rtecs/ (last accessed November 2008).
21. E.J. Matthews, N.L. Kruhlak, R.D. Benz, and J.F. Contrera, Assessment of the health effects of chemicals in humans: I. QSAR estimation of the maximum recommended therapeutic dose (MRTD) and no effect level (NOEL) of organic chemicals based on clinical trial data, Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 1 (2004), pp. 61-76.
22. ] EPA, FDAMDD: FDA Maximum (Recommended) Daily Dose, http://www.epa.gov/ncct/ dsstox/sdf_fdamdd.html (last accessed November 2008).
23. A. Geronikaki, P. Vicini, G. Theophilidis, A. Lagunin, V. Poroikov, and J.C. Dearden, Study of local anesthetic activity of some derivatives of 3-aminobenzo-[d]-isothiazole, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 14 (2003), pp. 485-495.
24. J.C. Dearden, S.J.A. Bradburne, M.T.D. Cronin, and P. Solanki, The physical significance of molecular connectivity, in QSAR 1988, J.E. Turner, M.W. England, T.W. Schultz, and N.J. Kwaak, eds., US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, 1988, pp. 43-50.
25. X. Lu, S. Tao, J. Cao, and R.W. Dawson, Prediction of fish bioconcentration factors of nonpolar organic pollutants based on molecular connectivity indices, Chemosphere 39 (1999), pp. 987-999.
26. M. Nendza, Structure-Activity Relationships in Environmental Sciences, Chapman & Hall, London, 1998.
27. D.A. Basketter, D.W. Roberts, M. Cronin, and E.W. Scholes, The value of the local lymph-node assay in quantitative structure-activity investigations, Contact Dermatitis 27 (1992), pp. 137-142.
28. f in QSAR: toxicity of aliphatic ethers, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001), pp. 614-618.
29. L. Eriksson, J.L.M. Hermens, E. Johansson, H.J.M. Verhaar, and S. Wold, Multivariate analysis of aquatic toxicity data with PLS, Aquat. Sci. 57 (1995), pp. 217-241.
30. R. Todeschini and V. Consonni, Handbook of Molecular Descriptors, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2000.
31. H. Kubinyi, Validation and predictivity of QSAR models, in QSAR and Molecular Modelling in Rational Design of Bioactive Molecules, E.A. Sener and I. Yalcin, eds., CADDD Society, Ankara, 2006, pp. 30-33.
32. W. Tong, R. Perkins, R. Strelitz, E.R. Collantes, S. Keenan, W.J. Welsh, W.S. Branham, and D.M. Sheehan, Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for estrogen binding to the estrogen receptor: predictions across species, Environ. Health Persp. 106 (1997), pp. 1116-1124.
33. O. Ivanciuc, QSAR comparative study of Wiener descriptors for weighted molecular graphs, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40 (2000), pp. 1412-1422.
34. P. Gramatica, N. Navas, and R. Todeschini, 3D-modelling and prediction by WHIM descriptors. Part 9. Chromatographic relative retention time and physico-chemical properties of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Chemomet. Intell. Lab. Sys. 40 (1998), pp. 53-63.
35. H. Niska, K. Tuppurainen, J.-P. Skön, A.K. Mallett, and M. Kolehmainen, Characterisation of the chemical and biological properties of molecules with QSAR/QSPR and chemical grouping, and its application to a group of alkyl ethers, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 19 (2008), pp. 263-284.
36. J.C. Dearden, In silico prediction of aqueous solubility, Expert Opin. Drug. Discov. 1 (2006), pp. 31-52.
37. E. Rytting, K.A. Lentz, X.-Q. Chen, F. Qian, and S. Venkatesh, Aqueous and cosolvent solubility data for drug-like organic compounds, Am. Assoc. Pharm. Sci. J. 7 (2005), pp. E78-E105.
38. W.L. Jorgensen and E.M. Duffy, Prediction of drug solubility from structure, Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 54 (2002), pp. 355-366.
39. P. Gramatica, P. Pilutti, and E. Papa, Validated QSAR prediction of OH tropospheric degradation of VOCs: splitting into training-test sets and consensus modelling, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 1794-1802.
40. T. Abshear, G.M. Banik, M.L. D'Souza, K. Nedwed, and C. Peng, A model validation and consensus building environment, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 17 (2006), pp. 311-321.
41. H. Zhu, A. Tropsha, D. Fourches, A. Varnek, E. Papa, P. Gramatica, T. Öberg, P. Dao, A. Cherkasov, and I.V. Tetko, Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants against Tetrahymena pyriformis, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48 (2008), pp. 766-784.
42. T. Ghafourian and J.C. Dearden, The use of atomic charges and orbital energies as hydrogenbonding- donor parameters for QSAR studies: comparison of MNDO, AM1 and PM3 methods, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 52 (2000), pp. 603-610.
43. J.C. Dearden, T.I. Netzeva, and R. Bibby, A comparison of commercially available software for the prediction of partition coefficient, in Designing Drugs and Crop Protectants: Processes, Problems and Solutions, M. Ford, D. Livingstone, J. Dearden, and H. van de Waterbeemd, eds., Blackwell, Oxford, 2003, pp. 169-170.
44. J.C. Dearden and G. Schüürmann, Quantitative structure-property relationships for predicting Henry's law constant from molecular structure, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1755-1770.
45. T. Hartung, S. Bremer, S. Casati, S. Coecke, R. Corvi, S. Fortaner, L. Gribaldo, M. Halder, S. Hoffmann, A. Janusch Roi, P. Prieto, E. Sabbioni, L. Scott, A. Worth, and V. Zuang, A modular approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity, ATLA 32 (2004), pp. 467-472.
46. A. Roncaglioni, Data exploration and knowledge extraction: their application to the study of endocrine disrupting chemicals, Ph.D. Thesis, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 2008.
47. T.I. Netzeva, A. Worth, T. Aldenberg, R. Benigni, M.T. Cronin, P. Gramatica, J.S. Jaworska, S. Kahn, G. Klopman, C.A. Marchant, G. Myatt, N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, G.Y. Patlewicz, R. Perkins, D. Roberts, T. Schultz, D.W. Stanton, J.J. van de Sandt, W. Tong, G. Veith, and C. Yang, Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52, ATLA 33 (2005), pp. 155-173.
48. J. Jaworska, N. Nikolova-Jeliaskova, and T. Aldenberg, QSAR applicability domain estimation by projection of the training set in descriptor space: a review, ATLA 33 (2005), pp. 445-459.
49. H. Kubinyi, Chemical similarity and biological activities, J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 13 (2002), pp. 717-726.
50. G.M. Maggiora, On outliers and activity cliffs - why QSAR often disappoints, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), p. 1535.
51. E. Papa, F. Villa, and P. Gramatica, Statistically validated QSARs, based on theoretical descriptors, for modeling aquatic toxicity of organic chemicals in Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow), J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45 (2005), pp. 1256-1266.
52. TOPKAT software, http://www.accelrys.com (last accessed November 2008).
53. J.C. Dearden, M.T.D. Cronin, T.W. Schultz, and D.T. Lin, QSAR study of the toxicity of nitrobenzenes to Tetrahymena pyriformis, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 14 (1995), pp. 427-432.
54. A. Niazi, S. Jameh-Bozorghi, and D. Nori-Shargh, Prediction of toxicity of nitrobenzenes using ab initio and least squares support vector machines, J. Hazardous Mat. 151 (2008), pp. 603-609.
55. R.L. Lipnick, Outliers: their origin and use in the classification of molecular mechanisms of toxicity, Sci. Tot. Environ. 109/110 (1991), pp. 131-153.
56. 2 for the training set or low root mean square error of prediction for the test set?, QSAR Comb. Sci. 24 (2005), pp. 385-396.
57. S. Doniger, T. Hofmann, and J. Yeh, Predicting CNS permeability of drug molecules: comparison of neural network and support vector machine algorithms, J. Comput. Biol. 9 (2002), pp. 849-864.
58. N.T. Hansen, I. Kouskoumvekaki, F.S. Jørgensen, S. Brunak, and S.Ó. Jónsdóttir, Prediction of pH-dependent aqueous solubility of druglike molecules, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), pp. 2601-2609.
59. D. Young, T. Martin, R. Venkatapathy, and P. Harten, Are the chemical structures in your QSAR correct?, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 1337-1345.
60. G.L. Flynn, Physicochemical determinants of skin absorption, in Principles of Route-to-Route Extrapolation for Risk Assessment, T.R. Gerrity and C.J. Henry, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 93-127.
61. L.A. Kirschner, R.P. Moody, E. Doyle, R. Bose, J. Jeffery, and I. Chu, The prediction of skin permeability by using physicochemical data, ATLA 25 (1997), pp. 359-370.
62. M.T.D. Cronin, J.C. Dearden, G.P. Moss, and G. Murray-Dickson, Investigation of the mechanism of flux across human skin in vitro by quantitative structure-permeability relationships, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 7 (1999), pp. 325-330.
63. H.F. Frasch and D.P. Landsittel, Regarding the sources of data analyzed with quantitative structure-skin permeability relationship methods (commentary on 'Investigation of the mechanism of flux across human skin in vitro by quantitative structure-permeability relationships'), Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 15 (2002), pp. 399-403.
64. M. Hewitt, J.C. Madden, P.H. Rowe, and M.T.D. Cronin, Structure-based modelling in reproductive toxicology: (Q)SARs for the placental barrier, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 18 (2007), pp. 57-76.
65. 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of xanthones using artificial neural networks, QSAR Comb. Sci. 26 (2007), pp. 764-772.
66. Cambridgesoft, ChemBioFinder.com Scientific Database Gateway, http://chembiofinder.cambridgesoft.com/chembiofinder/SimpleSearch.aspx (last accessed November 2008).
67. US National Library of Medicine, ChemIDplus Advanced, http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus (last accessed November 2008).
68. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc., SMILES - A Simplified Chemical Language, http://www.daylight.com/dayhtml/doc/theory/theory.smiles.html (last accessed November 2008).
69. TM), http://www.iupac.org/inchi (last accessed November 2008).
70. D.R. Lide, ed., CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 73rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1992-1993.
71. E.J. Delgado, J.B. Alderete, and G.A. Jaña, A simple QSPR model for predicting soil sorption coefficients of polar and nonpolar organic compounds from molecular formula, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003), pp. 1928-1932.
72. P. Gedeck, B. Rohde, and C. Bartels, QSAR - how good is it in practice? Comparison of descriptor sets on an unbiased cross section of corporate data sets, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), pp. 1924-1936.
73. F.R. Quinn, The quantitative structure-activity relationship of rifamycin B amide and hydrazide toxicity in mice, Il Pharmaco 37 (1982), pp. 3-12.
74. J.C. Dearden, The QSAR prediction of melting point, a property of environmental relevance, Sci. Tot. Environ. 109/110 (1991), pp. 59-68.
75. D.M. Borth, Optimal experimental designs for (possibly) censored data, Chemomet. Intell. Lab. Sys. 32 (1996), pp. 25-35.
76. D.M. Borth and M.S. Wilhelm, Confidence limits for normal type I censored regression, Chemomet. Intell. Lab. Sys. 63 (2002), pp. 117-128.
77. J.G. Topliss and R.J. Costello, Chance correlations in structure-activity studies using multiple regression analysis, J. Med. Chem. 15 (1972), pp. 1066-1068.
78. G.P. Romanelli, L.F.R. Cafferata, and E.A. Castro, An improved QSAR study of toxicity of saturated alcohols, J. Mol. Struct. - Theochem 504 (2000), pp. 261-265.
79. R. Benigni, L. Conti, R. Crebelli, A. Rodomonte, and M.R. Vari, Simple and _,_-unsaturated aldehydes: correct prediction of genotoxic activity through structure-activity relationship models, Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 46 (2005), pp. 268-280.
80. J.G. Topliss and R.P. Edwards, Chance factors in studies of quantitative structure-activity relationships, J. Med. Chem. 22 (1979), pp. 1238-1244.
81. A. Tropsha, P. Gramatica, and V.K. Gombar, The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models, QSAR Comb. Sci. 22 (2003), pp. 69-77.
82. D. Erös, G. Kéri, I. Kövesdi, C. Szánti-Kis, G. Mészáros, and L. Örfi, Comparison of predictive ability of water solubility QSPR models generated by MLR, PLS and ANN methods, Mini-Rev. Med. Chem. 4 (2004), pp. 167-177.
83. J. Ghasemi and S. Saaidpour, QSPR prediction of aqueous solubility of drug-like organic compounds, Chem. Pharm. Bull. 55 (2007), pp. 669-674.
84. P.P. Roy, J.T. Leonard, and K. Roy, Exploring the impact of size of training sets for the development of predictive QSAR models, Chemomet. Intell. Lab. Sys. 90 (2008), pp. 31-42.
85. A.R. Katritzky, Y. Wang, S. Sild, T. Tamm, and M. Karelson, QSPR studies on vapor pressure, aqueous solubility, and the prediction of water-air partition coefficients, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38 (1998), pp. 720-725.
86. P. Labute, A widely applicable set of descriptors, J. Mol. Graph. Model. 18 (2000), pp. 464-477.
87. C. Zhong and Q. Hu, Estimation of the aqueous solubility of organic compounds using molecular connectivity indices, J. Pharm. Sci. 92 (2003), pp. 2284-2294.
88. D. Yaffe, Y. Cohen, G. Espinosa, A. Arenas, and F. Giralt, A fuzzy ARTMAP based on quantitative structure-property relationships (QSPRs) for predicting aqueous solubility of organic compounds, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001), pp. 1177-1207.
89. M.H. Abraham and F. Martins, Human skin permeation and partition: general linear free-energy relationship analyses, J. Pharm. Sci. 93 (2004), pp. 1508-1523.
90. J.C. Dearden and M.T.D. Cronin, Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in drug design, in Smith and Williams' Introduction to the Principles of Drug Design and Action, 4th ed., H.J. Smith, ed., Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 2006, pp. 185-209.
91. M. Jalali-Heravi and F. Parastar, Computer modelling of the rate of glycine conjugation of some benzoic acid derivatives: a QSAR study, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 18 (1999), pp. 134-138.
92. M.H. Abraham, W.E. Acree, C. Mintz, and S. Payne, Effect of anesthetic structure on inhalation anesthesia: implications for the mechanism, J. Pharm. Sci. 97 (2008), pp. 2373-2384.
93. Umetrics - Experts in multivariate data analysis and design of experiments, http://www.umetrics.com (last accessed November 2008).
94. J. Devillers and J.C. Doré, e-Statistics for deriving QSAR models, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 13 (2002), pp. 409-416.
95. QSAR - Working with statistics, http://www.scripps.edu/rc/softwaredocs/msi/cerius45/qsar/working_with_st ats.html (last accessed November 2008).
96. QSAR World - Statistics, http://www.qsarworld.com/statistics.php (last accessed November 2008).
97. M.H. Fatemi and S. Gharaghani, A novel QSAR model for prediction of apoptosis-inducing activity of 4-aryl-4-H-chromenes based on support vector machine, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 15 (2007), pp. 7746-7754.
98. K.-T. Fang, H. Yin, and Y.-Z. Liang, New approach by Kriging models to problems in QSAR, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 2106-2113.
99. M.H. Abraham, R. Sánchez-Moreno, and J.E. Cometto-Muñiz, A quantitative structure- activity analysis on the relative sensitivity of the olfactory and the nasal trigeminal chemosensory systems, Chem. Senses 32 (2007), pp. 711-719.
100. M.S. Tute, Principles and practice of Hansch analysis: a guide to structure-activity correlation for the medicinal chemist, in Advances in Drug Research, Vol. 6, N.J. Harper and A.B. Simmonds, eds., Academic Press, London, 1971, pp. 1-77.
101. D.R. Roy, R. Parthasarathi, B. Maiti, V. Subramanian, and P.K. Chattaraj, Electrophilicity as a possible descriptor for toxicity prediction, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 13 (2005), pp. 3405-3412.
102. A.P. Freidig, H.J.M. Verhaar, and J.L.M. Hermens, Quantitative structure-property relationships for the chemical reactivity of acrylates and methacrylates, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18 (1999), pp. 1133-1139.
103. O.A. Raevsky, V.Yu. Grigor'ev, E.E. Weber, and J.C. Dearden, Classification and quantification of the toxicity of chemicals to guppy, fathead minnow and rainbow trout: Part 1. Nonpolar narcosis mode of action, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 1274-1281.
104. A. Golbraikh and A. Tropsha, Predictive QSAR modeling based on diversity sampling of experimental datasets for the training and test set selection, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design 16 (2002), pp. 357-369.
105. J.T. Leonard and K. Roy, On selection of training and test sets for the development of predictive QSAR models, QSAR Comb. Sci. 25 (2006), pp. 235-251.
106. E. Furusjö, A. Svenson, M. Rahmberg, and M. Andersson, The importance of outlier detection and training set selection for reliable environmental QSAR predictions, Chemosphere 63 (2006), pp. 99-108.
107. L. Eriksson, E. Johansson, M. Müller, and S. Wold, On the selection of the training set in environmental QSAR analysis when compounds are clustered, J. Chemom. 14 (2000), pp. 599-616.
108. A. Golbraikh, M. Shen, Z. Xiao, Y.-D. Xiao, K.-H. Lee, and A. Tropsha, Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design 17 (2003), pp. 241-253.
109. B. Hemmateenajad, K. Javadnia, and M. Elyasi, Quantitative structure-retention relationship for the Kovats retention indices of a large set of terpenes: a combined data splitting-feature selection strategy, Anal. Chim. Acta 592 (2007), pp. 72-81.
110. T.W. Schultz, T.I. Netzeva, and M.T.D. Cronin, Selection of data sets for QSARs: analyses of Tetrahymena toxicity from aromatic compounds, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 14 (2003), pp. 59-81.
111. R. Benigni and C. Bossa, Predictivity of QSAR, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48 (2008), pp. 971-980.
112. W.L. Jorgensen, QSAR/QSPR and proprietary data, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), p. 937.
113. I.V. Tetko, Personal communication to J.C. Dearden, 16 June 2008.
114. ® test), SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 4 (1995), pp. 29-38.
115. I.V. Tetko, I. Sushko, A.K. Pandey, H. Zhu, A. Tropsha, E. Papa, T. Öberg, R. Todeschini, D. Fourches, and A. Varnek, Critical assessment of QSAR models of environmental toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis; focusing on applicability domain and overfitting by variable selection, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48 (2008), pp. 1733-1746.
116. C. Hansch and A. Leo, Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology, Vol. 1, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1995.
117. P. Rowe, Essential Statistics for the Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wiley, Chichester, 2007.
118. S.R. Johnson, The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy), J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48 (2008), pp. 25-26.