化学毒性 QSAR 预测中的隐式和显式不确定性分析:神经毒性案例研究。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105716
Jerry Achar , James W. Firman , Chantelle Tran , Daniella Kim , Mark T.D. Cronin , Gunilla Öberg
{"title":"化学毒性 QSAR 预测中的隐式和显式不确定性分析:神经毒性案例研究。","authors":"Jerry Achar ,&nbsp;James W. Firman ,&nbsp;Chantelle Tran ,&nbsp;Daniella Kim ,&nbsp;Mark T.D. Cronin ,&nbsp;Gunilla Öberg","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although uncertainties expressed in texts within QSAR studies can guide quantitative uncertainty estimations, they are often overlooked during uncertainty analysis. Using neurotoxicity as an example, this study developed a method to support analysis of implicitly and explicitly expressed uncertainties in QSAR modeling studies. Text content analysis was employed to identify implicit and explicit uncertainty indicators, whereafter uncertainties within the indicator-containing sentences were identified and systematically categorized according to 20 uncertainty sources. Our results show that implicit uncertainty was more frequent within most uncertainty sources (13/20), while explicit uncertainty was more frequent in only three sources, indicating that uncertainty is predominantly expressed implicitly in the field. The most highly cited sources included Mechanistic plausibility, Model relevance and Model performance, suggesting they constitute sources of most concern. The fact that other sources like Data balance were not mentioned, although it is recognized in the broader QSAR literature as an area of concern, demonstrates that the output from the type of analysis conducted here must be interpreted in the context of the broader QSAR literature before conclusions are drawn. Overall, the method established here can be applied in other QSAR modeling contexts and ultimately guide efforts targeted towards addressing the identified uncertainty sources.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"154 ","pages":"Article 105716"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of implicit and explicit uncertainties in QSAR prediction of chemical toxicity: A case study of neurotoxicity\",\"authors\":\"Jerry Achar ,&nbsp;James W. Firman ,&nbsp;Chantelle Tran ,&nbsp;Daniella Kim ,&nbsp;Mark T.D. Cronin ,&nbsp;Gunilla Öberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105716\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Although uncertainties expressed in texts within QSAR studies can guide quantitative uncertainty estimations, they are often overlooked during uncertainty analysis. Using neurotoxicity as an example, this study developed a method to support analysis of implicitly and explicitly expressed uncertainties in QSAR modeling studies. Text content analysis was employed to identify implicit and explicit uncertainty indicators, whereafter uncertainties within the indicator-containing sentences were identified and systematically categorized according to 20 uncertainty sources. Our results show that implicit uncertainty was more frequent within most uncertainty sources (13/20), while explicit uncertainty was more frequent in only three sources, indicating that uncertainty is predominantly expressed implicitly in the field. The most highly cited sources included Mechanistic plausibility, Model relevance and Model performance, suggesting they constitute sources of most concern. The fact that other sources like Data balance were not mentioned, although it is recognized in the broader QSAR literature as an area of concern, demonstrates that the output from the type of analysis conducted here must be interpreted in the context of the broader QSAR literature before conclusions are drawn. Overall, the method established here can be applied in other QSAR modeling contexts and ultimately guide efforts targeted towards addressing the identified uncertainty sources.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"154 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105716\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230024001570\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230024001570","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然 QSAR 研究中文本表达的不确定性可以指导定量不确定性估计,但在不确定性分析过程中却经常被忽视。本研究以神经毒性为例,开发了一种支持分析 QSAR 建模研究中隐含和明确表达的不确定性的方法。我们采用文本内容分析法来识别隐式和显式不确定性指标,然后识别包含指标的句子中的不确定性,并根据 20 个不确定性来源进行系统分类。结果表明,在大多数不确定性来源(13/20)中,隐式不确定性更为常见,而显式不确定性仅在三个来源中更为常见,这表明不确定性在该领域主要以隐式表达。引用率最高的来源包括机理可信性、模型相关性和模型性能,这表明它们是最受关注的来源。数据平衡等其他来源虽然在更广泛的 QSAR 文献中被认为是一个值得关注的领域,但却没有被提及,这一事实表明,在得出结论之前,必须在更广泛的 QSAR 文献背景下对本文所做分析的结果进行解释。总之,本文所建立的方法可用于其他 QSAR 建模环境,并最终指导解决已确定的不确定性来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Analysis of implicit and explicit uncertainties in QSAR prediction of chemical toxicity: A case study of neurotoxicity
Although uncertainties expressed in texts within QSAR studies can guide quantitative uncertainty estimations, they are often overlooked during uncertainty analysis. Using neurotoxicity as an example, this study developed a method to support analysis of implicitly and explicitly expressed uncertainties in QSAR modeling studies. Text content analysis was employed to identify implicit and explicit uncertainty indicators, whereafter uncertainties within the indicator-containing sentences were identified and systematically categorized according to 20 uncertainty sources. Our results show that implicit uncertainty was more frequent within most uncertainty sources (13/20), while explicit uncertainty was more frequent in only three sources, indicating that uncertainty is predominantly expressed implicitly in the field. The most highly cited sources included Mechanistic plausibility, Model relevance and Model performance, suggesting they constitute sources of most concern. The fact that other sources like Data balance were not mentioned, although it is recognized in the broader QSAR literature as an area of concern, demonstrates that the output from the type of analysis conducted here must be interpreted in the context of the broader QSAR literature before conclusions are drawn. Overall, the method established here can be applied in other QSAR modeling contexts and ultimately guide efforts targeted towards addressing the identified uncertainty sources.
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
6.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
147
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health. Types of peer-reviewed articles published: -Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to: 1.Factors influencing human sensitivity 2.Exposure science related to risk assessment 3.Alternative toxicological test methods 4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations 5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies 6.Read-across methods and evaluations -Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues -Letters to the Editor -Guest Editorials (by Invitation)
期刊最新文献
Considerations and derivations of permitted daily exposure limits for impurities from intravitreal pharmaceutical products. Carcinogenicity Assessment of Inotersen in Tg.rasH2 Mice and Sprague-Dawley Rats: Implications for 2'-MOE Antisense Oligonucleotides. Enhancing reliability of embryo-fetal developmental toxicity studies: A proposed design of replicate studies. Target organ toxicity in Sprague Dawley rats following oral exposure to complex groundwater mixture: Assessment of dose-response relationships using histopathological and biochemical alterations Minimizing the Risk of Ethylene Glycol and Diethylene Glycol Poisoning in Medications: A Regulatory and Pharmacopoeial Response.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1