Advertisement

An Assessment of ILP-assisted models for toxicology and the PTE-3 experiment

  • Ashwin Srinivasan
  • Ross D. King
  • Douglas W. Bristol
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1634)

Abstract

The Predictive Toxicology Evaluation (or PTE) Challenge provided Machine Learning techniques with the opportunity to compete against specialised techniques for toxicology prediction. Toxicity models that used findings from ILP programs have performed creditably in the PTE-2 experiment proposed under this challenge. We report here on an assessment of such models along scales of: (1) quantitative performance, in comparison to models developed with expert collaboration; and (2) potential explanatory value for toxicology. Results appear to suggest the following: (a) across of range of class distributions and error costs, some explicit models constructed with ILP-assistance appear closer to optimal than most expert-assisted ones. Given the paucity of test-data, this is to be interpreted cautiously; (b) a combined use of propositional and ILP techniques appears to yield models that contain unusual combinations of structural and biological features; and (c) significant effort was required to interpret the output, strongly indicating the need to invest greater effort in transforming the output into a “toxicologist-friendly” form. Based on the lessons learnt from these results, we propose a new predictive toxicology evaluation experiment — PTE-3 — which will address some important shortcomings of the previous study.

Keywords

Quantitative Performance Classi Cation National Toxicology Program Environmental Health Perspective Inductive Logic Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Ashby. Predictions of rodent carcinogenicity for 30 compounds. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1101–1104, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Benigni. (Q)sar prediction of chemical carcinogenicity and the biological side of the structure activity relationship. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Workshop on QSARs in the Environmental Sciences, 1998. Held in Baltimore, May 16–20, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Bootman. Speculations on the carcinogenicity of 30 chemicals currently under review in rat and mouse bioassays organised by the us national toxicology program. Mutagenesis, 27:237–243, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Breiman, J.H. Friedman, R.A. Olshen, and C.J. Stone. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, Belmont, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.W. Bristol, J.T. Wachsman, and A. Greenwell. The NIEHS Predictive-Toxicology Evaluation Project. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1001–1010, 1996. Supplement 3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Dehaspe, H. Toivonen, and R.D. King. Finding frequent substructures in chemical compounds. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-98), pages 30–36. AAAI Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Hu_, E. Weisburger, and V.A. Fung. Multicomponent criteria for predicting carcinogenicity: dataset of 30 ntp chemicals. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104:1105–1112, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.E. Hu_, J.K. Haseman, and D.P. Rall. Scientific concepts, value and significance of chemical carcinogenesis studies. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol, 31:621–652, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.F.V. Lewis, C. Ioannides, and D.V. Parke. COMPACT and molecular structure in toxicity assessment: a prospective evaluation of 30 chemicals currently being tested for rodent carcinogenicity by the NCI/NTP. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1011–1016, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.A. Marchant. Prediction of rodent carcinogencity using the DEREK system for 30 chemicals currently being tested by the National Toxicology Program. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1065–1074, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Provost and T. Fawcett. Analysis and visualization of classifier performance: comparison under imprecise class and cost distributions. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-97), pages 43–48. AAAI Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Provost and T. Fawcett. Robust classification systems for imprecise environments. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98). AAAI Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Purdy. A mechanism-mediated model for carcinogenicity: model content a prediction of the outcome of rodent carcinogencity bioassays currently being conducted on 25 organic chemicals. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1085–1094, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Benigni, C. Andreoli, and R. Zito. Prediction of the carcinogenicity of further 30 chemicals bioassayed by the US National Toxicology Program. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1041–1044, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Srinivasan. Note on the location of optimal classifiers in n-dimensional ROC space. Technical Report PRG-TR-2-99, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Srinivasan and R.D. King. Using Inductive Logic Programming to construct Structure-Activity Relationships. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Predictive Toxicology. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1999. (to appear).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Srinivasan, R.D. King, and D.W. Bristol. An assessment of submissions made to the Predictive Toxicology Evaluation Challenge. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99). Morgan Kaufmann, Los Angeles, CA, 1999. (to appear).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Srinivasan, R.D. King, S.H. Muggleton, and M.J.E. Sternberg. The Predictive Toxicology Evaluation Challenge. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97). Morgan Kaufmann, Los Angeles, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.W. Tennant and J. Spalding. Predictions for the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays: identification of trans-species carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1095–1100, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y.T. Woo, D.Y. Lai, J.C. Arcos, M.F. Argus, M.C. Cimino, S. DeVito, and L. Keifer. Mechanism-based structure-activity relationship (sar) analysis of 30 ntp test chemicals. Environ. Carcino. Ecotox. Revs. C, 15:139–160, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashwin Srinivasan
    • 1
  • Ross D. King
    • 2
  • Douglas W. Bristol
    • 3
  1. 1.Oxford University Comp. Lab.OxfordUK
  2. 2.Dept. of Comp. Sc.University of Wales AberystwythCeredigionUK
  3. 3.NIEHSLab. of Carcinogenesis and MutagenesisUSA

Personalised recommendations