4.6 Article

The influence of negative training set size on machine learning-based virtual screening

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMINFORMATICS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-6-32

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Centre [2011/03/N/NZ2/02478]
  2. Marian Smoluchowski Krakow Research Consortium: Matter-Energy-Future

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The paper presents a thorough analysis of the influence of the number of negative training examples on the performance of machine learning methods. Results: The impact of this rather neglected aspect of machine learning methods application was examined for sets containing a fixed number of positive and a varying number of negative examples randomly selected from the ZINC database. An increase in the ratio of positive to negative training instances was found to greatly influence most of the investigated evaluating parameters of ML methods in simulated virtual screening experiments. In a majority of cases, substantial increases in precision and MCC were observed in conjunction with some decreases in hit recall. The analysis of dynamics of those variations let us recommend an optimal composition of training data. The study was performed on several protein targets, 5 machine learning algorithms (SMO, Naive Bayes, Ibk, J48 and Random Forest) and 2 types of molecular fingerprints (MACCS and CDK FP). The most effective classification was provided by the combination of CDK FP with SMO or Random Forest algorithms. The Naive Bayes models appeared to be hardly sensitive to changes in the number of negative instances in the training set. Conclusions: In conclusion, the ratio of positive to negative training instances should be taken into account during the preparation of machine learning experiments, as it might significantly influence the performance of particular classifier. What is more, the optimization of negative training set size can be applied as a boosting-like approach in machine learning-based virtual screening.

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

4.6
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