Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 27, 2026

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
Published on: May 9, 2025
Validation Strategy Dominates Model Choice in Chronological QSAR Evaluation
Filipa Almendra1, Andre O Falcao1,2
1Biosystems and Integrative Sciences Institute (BioISI), Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, Lisboa1749-016, Portugal.
Abstract:
Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models are commonly evaluated by random cross-validation or random train-test splits, but these retrospective procedures may overestimate performance when validation compounds are structurally or temporally close to the training data. In this study, we examined whether this optimism is primarily explained by structural redundancy, chronological data set evolution, or the choice of machine-learning model. Fourteen public ChEMBL bioactivity data sets were curated as binary classification tasks. Five validation conditions were compared: random validation, chronological validation by publication year, a size-matched randomly thinned control, structural filtering of the random validation set, and structural filtering of the chronological validation set. Model development was deliberately held fixed within the random-derived and year-derived comparisons, so that the effect of validation-set composition could be assessed without simultaneously changing the training cohort. Four standard QSAR model classes─random forest, support vector machine, XGBoost, and a feed-forward neural network─were evaluated under the same training-only model-selection workflow. Random validation produced closely aligned internal and external estimates, with mean MCC values of 0.75 and 0.72, respectively, while random thinning gave essentially unchanged validation performance (MCC 0.73). Structural filtering reduced validation MCC to 0.48 without changing the corresponding training-only CV estimate. Chronological validation produced a much larger generalization gap, with mean CV MCC of 0.73 and validation MCC of 0.19; additional structural filtering reduced validation MCC to 0.15. Model-class comparisons showed substantial overlap among classifiers, and no standard algorithm consistently overcame the chronological validation penalty. These results indicate that validation-set definition has a dominant influence on estimated QSAR generalization and that chronological data set shift is not reproduced by random or structure-only validation.
More Related Videos
00:05In Silico Modeling Method for Computational Aquatic Toxicology of Endocrine Disruptors: A Software-Based Approach Using QSAR Toolbox
Published on: August 28, 2019
07:41Modeling Fast-scan Cyclic Voltammetry Data from Electrically Stimulated Dopamine Neurotransmission Data Using QNsim1.0
Published on: June 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Quantitative Aspects of Drug-Receptor Interaction
Analysis Methods of Pharmacokinetic Data: Model and Model-Independent Approaches
The model approach uses mathematical models to describe changes in drug concentration over time. Pharmacokinetic models help characterize drug behavior in patients, predict drug concentration in the body fluids, calculate optimum dosage regimens, and evaluate the risk of toxicity. However, ensuring that the model fits the experimental data accurately...
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis
Pharmacokinetic Models: Overview
There are three primary types of models: empirical, compartment, and physiological. Empirical models, with minimal assumptions,...
Pharmacodynamic Models: Overview