4.3 Article

A refined QSAR model for prediction of chemical asthma hazard

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 659-666

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqv105

关键词

Occupational asthma; occupational chemicals; toxicology

资金

  1. Colt Foundation [CF/04/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background A previously developed quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model has been externally validated as a good predictor of chemical asthma hazard (sensitivity: 79-86%, specificity: 93-99%). Aims To develop and validate a second version of this model. Methods Learning dataset asthmagenic chemicals with molecular weight (MW) <1 kDa were identified from reports published in the peer-reviewed literature before the end of 2012. Control chemicals for which no reported case(s) of occupational asthma had been identified were selected at random from UK and US occupational exposure limit tables. MW banding was used in an attempt to categorically match the control group for MW distribution of the asthmagens. About 10% of chemicals in each MW category were excluded for use as an external validation set. An independent researcher utilized a logistic regression approach to compare the molecular descriptors present in asthmagens and controls. The resulting equation generated a hazard index (HI), with a value between zero and one, as an estimate of the probability that the chemical had asthmagenic potential. The HI was determined for each compound in the external validation set. Results The model development sets comprised 99 chemical asthmagens and 204 controls. The external validation showed that using a cut-point HI of 0.39, 9/10 asthmagenic (sensitivity: 90%) and 23/24 non-asthmagenic (specificity: 96%) compounds were correctly predicted. The new QSAR model showed a better receiver operating characteristic plot than the original. Conclusions QSAR refinement by iteration has resulted in an improved model for the prediction of chemical asthma hazard.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据