On some aspects of validation of predictive quantitative structure–activity relationship models

Bibliography

• SELASSIE CD: History of quantitative structure-activity relationships. In: Burger's Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery. Abraham DJ (Ed.), John Wiley, New York, USA (2003):1-48.
   Google Scholar
• PERKINS R, FANG H, TONG W, WELSH WJ: Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. (2003) 22(8):1666-1679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WALKER JD, JAWORSKA J, COMBER JHI, SCHULTZ TW, DEARDEN JC: Guidelines for developing and using quantitative structure-activity relationships. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. (2003) 22(8):1653-1665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YANG G-F, HUANG F: Development of quantitative structure–activity relationships and its application in rational drug design. Curr. Pharm. Des. (2006) 12:4601-4611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MAZZATORTA P, BENFENATI E, LORENZINI P, VIGHI M: QSAR in ecotoxicity: an overview of modern classification techniques. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2004) 44(1):105-112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• TONG W, HONG H, XIE Q, SHI L, FANG H, PERKINS R: Assessing QSAR limitations – a regulatory perspective. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. (2005) 1(2):195-205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HE L, JURS PC: Assessing the reliability of a QSAR model's predictions. J. Mol. Graph. Mod. (2005) 23(6):503-523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GHAFOURIAN T, CRONIN MTD: The impact of variable selection on the modelling of oestrogenicity. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. (2005) 16(1-2):171-190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TROPSHA A, GRAMATICA P, GOMBAR VK: The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR Comb. Sci. (2003) 22(1):69-77.
   Google Scholar
• GOLBRAIKH A, TROPSHA A: Beware of q2! J. Mol. Graph. Mod. (2002) 20(4):269-276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TONG W, XIE Q, HONG H, SHI L, FANG H, PERKINS R: Assessment of prediction confidence and domain extrapolation of two structure–activity relationship models for predicting estrogen receptor binding activity. Environ. Health Perspect. (2004) 112(12):1249-1254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BALLS M, BLAAUBOER BJ, FENTEM JH et al.: Practical aspects of the validation of toxicity test procedures –the report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 5. ATLA (1995) 23:129-147.
   Google Scholar
• APTULA AO, JELIAZKOVA NG, SCHULTZ TW, CRONIN MTD: The better predictive model: high q2 for the training set or low root mean square error of prediction for the test set? QSAR Comb. Sci. (2005) 24(3):385-396.
   Google Scholar
• McKINNEY JD, RICHARD A, WALLER C, NEWMAN MC, GERBERICK F: The practice of structure activity relationships (SAR) in toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. (2000) 56:8-17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TONG W, WELSH WJ, SHI L, FANG H, PERKINS R: Structure–activity relationship approaches and applications. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. (2003) 22:1680-1695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WORTH AP, CRONIN MTD: Report of the workshop on the validation of QSARs and other computational prediction models. ATLA (2004) 32(Suppl. 1):703-706.
   Google Scholar
• CRONIN MTD, JAWORSKA JS, WALKER JD, COMBER MHI, WATTS CD, WORTH AP: Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environ. Health Perspect. (2003) 111:1391-1401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CRONIN MTD, WALKER JD, JAWORSKA JS, COMBER MHI, WATTS CD, WORTH AP: Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecologic effects and environmental fate of chemical substances. Environ. Health Persp. (2003) 111:1376-1390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WORTH AP, LEEUWEN CJ VAN, HARTUNG T: The role of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) in the validation of (Q)SARs. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. (2004) 15(5-6):331-343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WORTH AP, HARTUNG T, LEEUWEN CJ VAN: The prospects for using (Q)SARs in a changing political environment – high expectations and a key role for the European Commission's joint research center. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. (2004) 15(5-6):345-358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VON DER OHE PC, KUHNE R, EBERT RU, ALTENBURGER R, LIESS M, SCHUURMANN G: Structural alerts – a new classification model to discriminate excess toxicity from narcotic effect levels of organic compounds in the acute daphnid assay. Chem. Res. Toxicol. (2005) 18:536-555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• COMBES R, BALLS M, BANSIL L et al.: An assessment of progress in the use of alternatives in toxicity testing since the publication of the report of the second FRAME toxicity committee. ATLA (1991) 30:365-406.
   Google Scholar
• WORTH AP, CRONIN MTD, LEEUWEN CJ VAN: A frame-work for promoting the acceptance and regulatory use of (Quantitative) structure–activity relationships. In: Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate, Cronin MTD, Livingstone DJ (Eds), CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA (2004):429-440.
   Google Scholar
• CRONIN MTD, LIVINGSTONE DJ: Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA (2004):472.
   Google Scholar
• JAWORSKA JS, COMBER M, AUER C, LEEUWEN CJ VAN: Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoints. Environ. Health Perspect. (2003) 111:1358-1360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CLARK RD, SPROUS DG, LEONARD JM: In: Rational Approaches to Drug Design, HÖltje HD, Sippl W (Eds), Prous Science, Barcelona, Spain (2001):475-485.
   Google Scholar
• GOLBRAIKH A, TROPSHA A: Predictive QSAR modeling based on diversity sampling of experimental datasets for the training and test set selection. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. (2002) 16:357-369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WOLD S, ERIKSSON L: Statistical validation of QSAR results. In: Chemometrics Methods in Molecular Design. van deWaterbeemd H (Ed.), VCH (1995):309-318.
   Google Scholar
• STONE M: Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. (1974) B36:111-147.
   Google Scholar
• WOLD S: Cross-validation estimation of the number of components in factor and principal components models. Technometrics (1978) 20:397-405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WOLD S: Validation of QSAR's. Quant. Struct. Act. Relat. (1991) 10:191-193.
   Google Scholar
• KUBINYI H, HAMPRECHT FA, MIETZNER T: Three-dimensional quantitative similarity–activity relationships (3D QSiAR) from SEAL similarity matrices. J. Med. Chem. (1998) 41:2553-2564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LEONARD JT, ROY K: On selection of training and test sets for the development of predictive QSAR models. QSAR Comb. Sci. (2006) 25:235-251.
   Google Scholar
• WEHRENS R, PUTTER H, BUYDENS LMC: The bootstrap: a tutorial. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Sys. (2000) 54:35-52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WU W, WALCZAK B, MASSART DL et al.: Artificial neural networks in classification of NIR spectral data: design of the training set. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. (1996) 33:35-46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HAWKINS DM, BASAK SC, MILLS D: Assessing model fit by crossvalidation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2003) 43(2):579-586.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• HAWKINS DM: The problem of overfitting. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2003) 44(1):1-12.
   Google Scholar
• NOVELLINO E, FATTORUSSO C, GRECO G: Use of comparative molecular field analysis and cluster analysis in series design. Pharm. Acta Helv. (1995) 70:149-154.
   Google Scholar
• NORINDER U: Single and domain variable selection in 3D QSAR applications. J. Chemom. (1996) 10:95-105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KUBINYI H: A general view on similarity and QSAR studies. In: Computer-Assisted Lead Finding and Optimization, van de Waterbeemd H, Testa B, Folkers G (Eds), VHChA and VCH, Basel, Weinheim (1997):9-28.
   Google Scholar
• KUBINYI H, HAMPRECHT FA, MIETZNER T: Three-dimensional quantitative similarity-activity relationships (3D QSiAR) from SEAL similarity matrices. J. Med. Chem. (1998) 41:2553-2564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GUHA R, JURS PC: Determining the validity of a QSAR model – a classification approach. J. Chem. Inf. Model. (2005) 45(1):65-73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YASRI A, HARTSOUGH D: Toward an optimal procedure for variable selection and QSAR model building. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2001) 41:1218-1227.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KAUFFMAN GV, JURS PC: QSAR and k-nearest neighbor classification analysis of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors using topologically-based numerical descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2001) 41:1553-1560.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MATTIONI BE, JURS PC: Prediction of glass transition temperatures from monomer and repeat unit structure using computational neural networks. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2002) 42:232-240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• CARLSON R: Design and Optimization in Organic Synthesis. Elsevier (1992).
   Google Scholar
• HUUSKONEN J: QSAR modeling with the electrotopological state: TIBO derivatives. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2001) 41:425-429.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• TETKO IV, KOVALISHYN VV, LIVINGSTONE DJ: Volume learning algorithm artificial neural networks for 3D QSAR studies. J. Med. Chem. (2001) 44:2411-2420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GASTEIGER J, ZUPAN J: Neural networks in chemistry. Angew. Chem. (1993) 32(4):503-527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EVERITT BS, LANDAU S, LEESE M: Cluster Analysis. Edward Arnold, London, UK (2001).
   Google Scholar
• KOWALSKI RB, WOLD S: Handbook of Statistics. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1982).
   Google Scholar
• LAJINESS M, JOHNSON MA, MAGGIORA GM: In: QSAR: Quantitative Structure – Activity Relationships in Drug Design. Fauchere JL (Ed.), Alan R Liss Inc., New York, USA (1989):173-176.
   Google Scholar
• TAYLOR R: Simulation analysis of experimental design strategies for screening random compounds as potential new drugs and agrochemicals. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (1995) 35:59-67.
   Google Scholar
• SNAREY M, TERRETT NK, WILLETT P, WILTON DJ: Comparison of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. J. Mol. Graph. Mod. (1997) 15:372-385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KENNARD RW, STONE LA: Computer-aided design of experiments. Technometrics (1969) 11:137-148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BOURGUIGNON B, DEAGUIAR PF, THORREAND K, MASSART DL: The application of nonlinear regression functions for the modelling of retention in reversed-phase liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. Sci. (1994) 32:144-152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BOURGUIGNON B, DEAGUIAR PF, KHOTS MS, MASSART DL: Optimization in irregularly shaped regions: pH and solvent strength in reversed-phase HPLC separations. Anal. Chem. (1994) 66:893-904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GOLBRAIKH A: Molecular dataset diversity indices and their applications to comparison of chemical databases and QSAR analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2000) 40:414-425.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SZÁNTAI-KIS C, KÖVESDI I, KÈRI G, ORFI L: Validation subset selections for extrapolation oriented QSPAR models. Mol. Divers. (2003) 7:37-43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GRAMATICA P: Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR Comb. Sci. (2007) 26(6):694-701.
   Google Scholar
• ATKINSON AC: Plots, Transformations and Regression. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK (1985).
   Google Scholar
• JAWORSKA J, NIKOLOVA-JELIAZKOVA N, ALDENBERG T: QSAR applicability domain estimation by projection of the training set descriptor space: a review. Altern. Lab. Anim. (2005) 33(5):445-459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• STANFORTH RW, KOLOSSOV E, MIRKIN B: A measure of domain of applicability for QSAR modelling based on intelligent K-means clustering. QSAR Comb. Sci. (2007) 26(7):837-844.
   Google Scholar
• BAUMANN K, STIEFL N: Validation tools for variable subset regression. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. (2004) 18:549-562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZHENG W, TROPSHA A: Novel variable selection quantitative structure – property relationship approach based on the k-nearest-neighbor principle. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. (2000) 40(1):185-194.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• GHAFOURIAN T, CRONIN M: The effect of variable selection on the non-linear modeling of oestrogen receptor binding. QSAR Comb. Sci. (2006) 25(10):824-835.
   Google Scholar
• ROY P, ROY K: On some aspects of variable selection for partial least squares regression models. QSAR Comb. Sci. (2007):[Epub ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• ROY PP, LEONARD JT, ROY K: Exploring the impact of the size of training sets for the development of predictive QSAR models. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Sys. (2007) [Epub ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• KAHN I, FARA D, KARELSON M, MARAN U: QSPR treatment of the soil sorption coefficients of organic pollutants. J. Chem. Inf. Model. (2005) 45:94-105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GRAMATICA P, GIANI E, PAPA E: Statistical external validation and consensus modeling: a QSPR case study for Koc prediction. J. Mol. Graph. Model. (2007) 25:755-766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DEBNATH AK: Generation of predictive pharmacophore models for CCR5 antagonists: study with piperidine- and piperazine-based compounds as a new class of HIV-1 entry inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. (2003) 46:4501-4515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar