ArticleMolecular diversity2026
Comparative evaluation and selection of optimal QSAR-based machine learning model for liver toxicity prediction.
Article in Molecular diversity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug induced liver toxicity remains the most common cause of acute liver failure. Conventional toxicity detection relies on resource-intensive in vivo and in vitro assays that are costly, time-consuming, and poorly scalable to the volumes of candidate compounds typical of modern drug discovery. Robust, interpretable computational tools capable of early stage hepatotoxicity prediction from molecular structure alone are therefore urgently required. A curated multi source dataset of 6,219 compounds was gathered from four publicly available datasets: FDA DILIst, LTKB Benchmark, Open TG-GATEs, and ToxRIC. Seven machine learning algorithms including linear and nonlinear, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbours, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, AdaBoost, and XGBoosts were systematically benchmarked within a unified, leak-free pre processing pipeline incorporating median imputation, variance-based feature filtering, SMOTE applied exclusively within stratified fivefold cross-validation folds, and Z-score scaling. Molecular features calculate by using RDKIT included physicochemical, topological, and electronic descriptors, combined with ECFP4 circular fingerprints. Hyper parameter optimisation done by using Grid Search CV and Randomized Search CV, with ROC-AUC as the scoring objective, with (n-estimators = 388, max-depth = 15) achieved a test set ROC-AUC of 0.728, a recall of 0.706, and an F1-score of 0.700. External validation on an independent 50 compound set yielded ROC-AUC of 0.741, confirming consistent generalisation. SHAP Tree-Explainer analysis identified ECFP4 circular fingerprint bits encoding reactive substructural environments and VSA-type descriptors (SlogP_VSA6/7, PEOE_VSA9/10) as the primary structural drivers of hepatotoxicity predictions, consistent with lipophilic accumulation and CYP enzyme inhibition as DILI mechanisms. Applicability domain analysis using the leverage-based hat matrix method confirmed substantially higher prediction reliability for within-domain compounds, providing confidence bounds essential for prospective screening applications. SHAP and LIME consensus analysis validated the importance of descriptors across two independent interpretability frameworks, strengthening the mechanistic credibility of the identified structural features. The developed model provides a reproducible, interpretable, and externally validated computational tool for early-stage hepatotoxicity screening, capable of correctly identifying approximately 71% of hepatotoxic compounds before experimental testing, thereby supporting more efficient and cost-effective prioritisation of drug candidates in the safety evaluation pipeline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42265490What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.