Self organising hypothesis networks: A new approach for representing and structuring SAR knowledge

Journal of Cheminformatics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Hanser, Thierry ^a   Barber, Chris ^a   Rosser, Edward ^a   Vessey, Jonathan D ^a   Webb, Samuel J ^a   Werner, Stéphane ^a  

^a LHASA LIMITED   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Confidence metric; Data mining; Hypothesis Network; Interpretable model; Knowledge discovery; Machine learning; QSAR; SAR; SOHN

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902239538     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17582946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-6-21     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Machine learning methods for property prediction in chemoinformatics: Quo Vadis? Varnek A, Baskin I, J Chem Inf Model 2012 52 6 1413 1437 10.1021/ci200409x 22582859
2. Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. Cooper JA, Saracci R, Cole P, Br J Cancer 1979 39 1 87 89 10.1038/bjc.1979.10 758931
3. Beyond the scope of free-Wilson analysis: building interpretable QSAR models with machine learning algorithms. Chen H, Carlsson L, Eriksson M, Varkonyi P, Norinder U, Nilsson I, J Chem Inf Model 2013 53 6 1324 1336 10.1021/ci4001376 23789733
4. Interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models applied to ames mutagenicity data. Carlsson L, Helgee EA, Boyer S, J Chem Inf Model 2009 49 11 2551 2558 10.1021/ci9002206 19824682
5. Interpreting linear support vector machine models with heat map molecule coloring. Rosenbaum L, Hinselmann G, Jahn A, Zell A, J Cheminformatics 2011 3 1 11 10.1186/1758-2946-3-11
6. Assessing confidence in predictions made by knowledge-based systems. Judson PN, Stalford SA, Vessey J, Toxicol Res 2012 2 1 70 79
7. An overview of advances in reliability estimation of individual predictions in machine learning. Bosnić Z, Kononenko I, Intell Data Anal 2009 13 2 385 401
8. Critical assessment of QSAR models of environmental toxicity against tetrahymena pyriformis: focusing on applicability domain and overfitting by variable selection. Tetko IV, Sushko I, Pandey AK, Zhu H, Tropsha A, Papa E, Öberg T, Todeschini R, Fourches D, Varnek A, J Chem Inf Model 2008 48 9 1733 1746 10.1021/ci800151m 18729318
9. Comparison of different approaches to define the applicability domain of QSAR models. Sahigara F, Mansouri K, Ballabio D, Mauri A, Consonni V, Todeschini R, Molecules 2012 17 12 4791 4810 10.3390/molecules17054791 22534664
10. A stepwise approach for defining the applicability domain of SAR and QSAR models. Dimitrov S, Dimitrova G, Pavlov T, Dimitrova N, Patlewicz G, Niemela J, Mekenyan O, J Chem Inf Model 2005 45 4 839 849 10.1021/ci0500381 16045276
11. Assessment of methods to define the applicability domain of structural alert models. Ellison CM, Sherhod R, Cronin MTD, Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Judson PN, J Chem Inf Model 2011 51 5 975 985 21488656
12. Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification-and regression-based QSARs. Eriksson L, Jaworska J, Worth AP, Cronin MTD, McDowell RM, Gramatica P, Environ Health Perspect 2003 111 10 1361 1375 10.1289/ehp.5758 12896860
13. Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models [Internet]. 2007 Report No.: ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/34241659.pdf
14. Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants tested against tetrahymena pyriformis. Zhu H, Tropsha A, Fourches D, Varnek A, Papa E, Gramatica P, Öberg T, Dao P, Cherkasov A, Tetko IV, J Chem Inf Model 2008 48 4 766 784 10.1021/ci700443v 18311912
15. Inductive logic programming: issues, results and the challenge of learning language in logic. Muggleton S, Artif Intell 1999 114 1-2 283 296 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00067-3
16. Induction of decision trees. Quinlan JR, Mach Learn 1986 1 1 81 106
17. Support-vector networks. Cortes C, Vapnik V, Mach Learn 1995 20 3 273 297
18. Random forests. Breiman L, Mach Learn 2001 45 1 5 32 10.1023/A: 1010933404324
19. Formal Concept Analysis as Mathematical Theory of Concepts and Concept Hierarchies. Wille R, Form Concept Anal Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, Ganter B, Stumme G, Wille R, 2005 1 33
20. Similarity searching using reduced graphs† Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J, J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003 43 2 338 345 10.1021/ci025592e 12653495
21. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. Rarey M, Dixon JS, J Comput Aided Mol Des 1998 12 5 471 490 10.1023/A:1008068904628 9834908
22. Exploring activity cliffs in medicinal chemistry. Stumpfe D, Bajorath J, J Med Chem 2012 55 7 2932 2942 10.1021/jm201706b 22236250
23. Matched molecular pairs as a medicinal chemistry tool. Griffen E, Leach AG, Robb GR, Warner DJ, J Med Chem 2011 54 22 7739 7750 10.1021/jm200452d 21936582
24. Systematic extraction of structure-activity relationship information from biological screening data. Wawer M, Bajorath J, Chem Med Chem 2009 4 9 1431 1438 10.1002/cmdc.200900222 19621333
25. The scaffold tree-visualization of the scaffold universe by hierarchical scaffold classification. Schuffenhauer A, Ertl P, Roggo S, Wetzel S, Koch MA, Waldmann H, J Chem Inf Model 2007 47 1 47 58 10.1021/ci600338x 17238248
26. An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression. Altman NS, Am Stat 1992 46 3 175
27. A mathematical theory of communication. Shannon CE, ACM SIGMOBILE Mob Comput Commun Rev 2001 5 1 3 55 10.1145/584091.584093
28. In silico tools for sharing data and knowledge on toxicity and metabolism: derek for windows, meteor, and vitic. Marchant CA, Briggs KA, Long A, Toxicol Mech Methods 2008 18 2-3 177 187 10.1080/15376510701857320 20020913
29. An investigation into pharmaceutically relevant mutagenicity data and the influence on Ames predictive potential. McCarren P, Springer C, Whitehead L, J Cheminformatics 2011 3 1 51 10.1186/1758-2946-3-51
30. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeoffoods/cfsan/ default.htm
31. Stacked generalization. Wolpert DH, Neural Netw 1992 5 2 241 259 10.1016/S0893-6080(05)80023-1
32. Bagging predictors. Breiman L, Mach Learn 1996 24 2 123 140
33. A brief introduction to boosting. Schapire RE, Proc 16th Int Jt Conf Artif Intell San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc 2 1999 1401 1406