{"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}
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.
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.