4.4 Article

It's difficult, but important, to make negative predictions

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue -, Pages 79-86

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.01.008

Keywords

Negative predictions; (Q)SAR; Expert system; In silico toxicology; Expert assessment; ICH M7

Ask authors/readers for more resources

At the confluence of predictive and regulatory toxicologies, negative predictions may be the thin green line that prevents populations from being exposed to harm. Here, two novel approaches to making confident and robust negative in silico predictions for mutagenicity (as defined by the Ames test) have been evaluated. Analyses of 12 data sets containing >13,000 compounds, showed that negative predictivity is high (similar to 90%) for the best approach and features that either reduce the accuracy or certainty of negative predictions are identified as misclassified or unclassified respectively. However, negative predictivity remains high (and in excess of the prevalence of non-mutagens) even in the presence of these features, indicating that they are not flags for mutagenicity. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available