定量构效关系最优验证方法的选择及适用范围。

IF 2.3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
K Héberger
{"title":"定量构效关系最优验证方法的选择及适用范围。","authors":"K Héberger","doi":"10.1080/1062936X.2023.2214871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This brief literature survey groups the (numerical) validation methods and emphasizes the contradictions and confusion considering bias, variance and predictive performance. A multicriteria decision-making analysis has been made using the sum of absolute ranking differences (SRD), illustrated with five case studies (seven examples). SRD was applied to compare external and cross-validation techniques, indicators of predictive performance, and to select optimal methods to determine the applicability domain (AD). The ordering of model validation methods was in accordance with the sayings of original authors, but they are contradictory within each other, suggesting that any variant of cross-validation can be superior or inferior to other variants depending on the algorithm, data structure and circumstances applied. A simple fivefold cross-validation proved to be superior to the Bayesian Information Criterion in the vast majority of situations. It is simply not sufficient to test a numerical validation method in one situation only, even if it is a well defined one. SRD as a preferable multicriteria decision-making algorithm is suitable for tailoring the techniques for validation, and for the optimal determination of the applicability domain according to the dataset in question.</p>","PeriodicalId":21446,"journal":{"name":"SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research","volume":"34 5","pages":"415-434"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selection of optimal validation methods for quantitative structure-activity relationships and applicability domain.\",\"authors\":\"K Héberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1062936X.2023.2214871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This brief literature survey groups the (numerical) validation methods and emphasizes the contradictions and confusion considering bias, variance and predictive performance. A multicriteria decision-making analysis has been made using the sum of absolute ranking differences (SRD), illustrated with five case studies (seven examples). SRD was applied to compare external and cross-validation techniques, indicators of predictive performance, and to select optimal methods to determine the applicability domain (AD). The ordering of model validation methods was in accordance with the sayings of original authors, but they are contradictory within each other, suggesting that any variant of cross-validation can be superior or inferior to other variants depending on the algorithm, data structure and circumstances applied. A simple fivefold cross-validation proved to be superior to the Bayesian Information Criterion in the vast majority of situations. It is simply not sufficient to test a numerical validation method in one situation only, even if it is a well defined one. SRD as a preferable multicriteria decision-making algorithm is suitable for tailoring the techniques for validation, and for the optimal determination of the applicability domain according to the dataset in question.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research\",\"volume\":\"34 5\",\"pages\":\"415-434\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2023.2214871\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2023.2214871","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇简短的文献综述了(数值)验证方法,并强调了考虑偏差、方差和预测性能的矛盾和混乱。使用绝对排名差异之和(SRD)进行了多标准决策分析,并通过五个案例研究(七个例子)进行了说明。SRD应用于比较外部和交叉验证技术,预测性能指标,并选择最佳方法来确定适用性域(AD)。模型验证方法的顺序与原作者的说法一致,但它们之间相互矛盾,这表明根据算法、数据结构和应用环境的不同,交叉验证的任何变体都可能优于或劣于其他变体。在绝大多数情况下,一个简单的五重交叉验证被证明优于贝叶斯信息准则。仅仅在一种情况下测试数值验证方法是不够的,即使它是一个定义良好的情况。SRD作为一种较好的多准则决策算法,适合于定制验证技术,并根据所讨论的数据集确定最优的适用性域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Selection of optimal validation methods for quantitative structure-activity relationships and applicability domain.

This brief literature survey groups the (numerical) validation methods and emphasizes the contradictions and confusion considering bias, variance and predictive performance. A multicriteria decision-making analysis has been made using the sum of absolute ranking differences (SRD), illustrated with five case studies (seven examples). SRD was applied to compare external and cross-validation techniques, indicators of predictive performance, and to select optimal methods to determine the applicability domain (AD). The ordering of model validation methods was in accordance with the sayings of original authors, but they are contradictory within each other, suggesting that any variant of cross-validation can be superior or inferior to other variants depending on the algorithm, data structure and circumstances applied. A simple fivefold cross-validation proved to be superior to the Bayesian Information Criterion in the vast majority of situations. It is simply not sufficient to test a numerical validation method in one situation only, even if it is a well defined one. SRD as a preferable multicriteria decision-making algorithm is suitable for tailoring the techniques for validation, and for the optimal determination of the applicability domain according to the dataset in question.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research is an international journal welcoming papers on the fundamental and practical aspects of the structure-activity and structure-property relationships in the fields of environmental science, agrochemistry, toxicology, pharmacology and applied chemistry. A unique aspect of the journal is the focus on emerging techniques for the building of SAR and QSAR models in these widely varying fields. The scope of the journal includes, but is not limited to, the topics of topological and physicochemical descriptors, mathematical, statistical and graphical methods for data analysis, computer methods and programs, original applications and comparative studies. In addition to primary scientific papers, the journal contains reviews of books and software and news of conferences. Special issues on topics of current and widespread interest to the SAR and QSAR community will be published from time to time.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信