Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Chem Inf Model. 2012 Oct 22;52(10):2570-8. doi: 10.1021/ci300338w. Epub 2012 Oct 3.

Does rational selection of training and test sets improve the outcome of QSAR modeling?

Author information

1
Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA. martin.todd@epa.gov

Abstract

Prior to using a quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) model for external predictions, its predictive power should be established and validated. In the absence of a true external data set, the best way to validate the predictive ability of a model is to perform its statistical external validation. In statistical external validation, the overall data set is divided into training and test sets. Commonly, this splitting is performed using random division. Rational splitting methods can divide data sets into training and test sets in an intelligent fashion. The purpose of this study was to determine whether rational division methods lead to more predictive models compared to random division. A special data splitting procedure was used to facilitate the comparison between random and rational division methods. For each toxicity end point, the overall data set was divided into a modeling set (80% of the overall set) and an external evaluation set (20% of the overall set) using random division. The modeling set was then subdivided into a training set (80% of the modeling set) and a test set (20% of the modeling set) using rational division methods and by using random division. The Kennard-Stone, minimal test set dissimilarity, and sphere exclusion algorithms were used as the rational division methods. The hierarchical clustering, random forest, and k-nearest neighbor (kNN) methods were used to develop QSAR models based on the training sets. For kNN QSAR, multiple training and test sets were generated, and multiple QSAR models were built. The results of this study indicate that models based on rational division methods generate better statistical results for the test sets than models based on random division, but the predictive power of both types of models are comparable.

PMID:
23030316
DOI:
10.1021/ci300338w
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for American Chemical Society
Loading ...
Support Center