↓ Skip to main content

Reliable estimation of prediction errors for QSAR models under model uncertainty using double cross-validation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliable estimation of prediction errors for QSAR models under model uncertainty using double cross-validation
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13321-014-0047-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Désirée Baumann, Knut Baumann

Abstract

Generally, QSAR modelling requires both model selection and validation since there is no a priori knowledge about the optimal QSAR model. Prediction errors (PE) are frequently used to select and to assess the models under study. Reliable estimation of prediction errors is challenging - especially under model uncertainty - and requires independent test objects. These test objects must not be involved in model building nor in model selection. Double cross-validation, sometimes also termed nested cross-validation, offers an attractive possibility to generate test data and to select QSAR models since it uses the data very efficiently. Nevertheless, there is a controversy in the literature with respect to the reliability of double cross-validation under model uncertainty. Moreover, systematic studies investigating the adequate parameterization of double cross-validation are still missing. Here, the cross-validation design in the inner loop and the influence of the test set size in the outer loop is systematically studied for regression models in combination with variable selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Bulgaria 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 94 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 29%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 37 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Computer Science 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2021.
All research outputs
#4,266,866
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#384
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,424
of 371,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.