Best Practices for QSAR Model Reporting: Physical and Chemical Properties, Ecotoxicity, Environmental Fate, Human...

Quantitative and qualitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) have been used to understand chemical behavior for almost a century. The main source of QSAR models is the scientific literature, but the open question is how well these models are documented.

The main aim of this study was to critically analyze the publication practices of QSARs with regard to transparency, potential reproducibility, and independent verification. The focus was on the level of technical completeness of the published QSARs.

A total of 1,533 QSAR articles reporting 79 individual endpoints, mostly in environmental and health science, were reviewed. The QSAR parameters required for technical completeness were grouped into five categories: chemical structures, experimental endpoint values, descriptor values, mathematical representation of the model, and predicted endpoint values. The data were summarized and discussed using Circos plots.

Altogether, 42.5% of the reviewed articles were found to be potentially reproducible. The potential reproducibility for different endpoint groups varied; the respective rates were 39% for physical and chemical properties, 52% for ecotoxicity, 56% for environmental fate, 30% for human health, and 32% for toxicokinetics. The reproducibility of QSARs is discussed and placed in the context of the reproducibility of the experimental methods. Included are 65 references to open QSAR datasets as examples of models restored from scientific articles.

Strikingly poor documentation of QSARs was observed, which reduces the transparency, availability, and consequently, the application of research results in scientific, industrial, and regulatory areas. A list of the components needed to ensure the best practices for QSAR reporting is provided, allowing long-term use and preservation of the models. This list also allows an assessment of the reproducibility of models by interested parties such as journal editors, reviewers, regulators, evaluators, and potential users. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3264.