Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, volume 47, issue 2, pages 488-508

Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods:  Good and Bad Metrics for the “Early Recognition” Problem

Jean-Francois Truchon 1
Christopher I. Bayly 1
1
 
Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Merck Frosst Centre for Therapeutic Research, 16711 TransCanada Highway, Kirkland, Québec, Canada H9H 3L1
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2007-02-09
Quartile SCImago
Q1
Quartile WOS
Q1
Impact factor5.6
ISSN15499596, 1549960X
General Chemistry
Computer Science Applications
General Chemical Engineering
Library and Information Sciences
Abstract
Many metrics are currently used to evaluate the performance of ranking methods in virtual screening (VS), for instance, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), the area under the accumulation curve (AUAC), the average rank of actives, the enrichment factor (EF), and the robust initial enhancement (RIE) proposed by Sheridan et al. In this work, we show that the ROC, the AUAC, and the average rank metrics have the same inappropriate behaviors that make them poor metrics for comparing VS methods whose purpose is to rank actives early in an ordered list (the "early recognition problem"). In doing so, we derive mathematical formulas that relate those metrics together. Moreover, we show that the EF metric is not sensitive to ranking performance before and after the cutoff. Instead, we formally generalize the ROC metric to the early recognition problem which leads us to propose a novel metric called the Boltzmann-enhanced discrimination of receiver operating characteristic that turns out to contain the discrimination power of the RIE metric but incorporates the statistical significance from ROC and its well-behaved boundaries. Finally, two major sources of errors, namely, the statistical error and the "saturation effects", are examined. This leads to practical recommendations for the number of actives, the number of inactives, and the "early recognition" importance parameter that one should use when comparing ranking methods. Although this work is applied specifically to VS, it is general and can be used to analyze any method that needs to segregate actives toward the front of a rank-ordered list.

Top-30

Journals

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
134 publications, 20.94%
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
31 publications, 4.84%
Journal of Cheminformatics
30 publications, 4.69%
Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics
29 publications, 4.53%
Molecules
22 publications, 3.44%
Molecular Informatics
17 publications, 2.66%
PLoS ONE
14 publications, 2.19%
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
13 publications, 2.03%
Methods in Molecular Biology
13 publications, 2.03%
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
11 publications, 1.72%
Scientific Reports
9 publications, 1.41%
Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling
9 publications, 1.41%
European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
8 publications, 1.25%
Frontiers in Chemistry
6 publications, 0.94%
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science
6 publications, 0.94%
Journal of Computational Chemistry
6 publications, 0.94%
ACS Omega
6 publications, 0.94%
Briefings in Bioinformatics
6 publications, 0.94%
Frontiers in Pharmacology
5 publications, 0.78%
Molecular Diversity
5 publications, 0.78%
Journal of Molecular Modeling
5 publications, 0.78%
Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry
5 publications, 0.78%
Chemical Biology and Drug Design
5 publications, 0.78%
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
5 publications, 0.78%
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
5 publications, 0.78%
Bioinformatics
5 publications, 0.78%
Chemical Science
4 publications, 0.63%
Future Medicinal Chemistry
4 publications, 0.63%
BMC Bioinformatics
4 publications, 0.63%
20
40
60
80
100
120
140

Publishers

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
American Chemical Society (ACS)
164 publications, 25.63%
Springer Nature
138 publications, 21.56%
Wiley
71 publications, 11.09%
Elsevier
63 publications, 9.84%
MDPI
44 publications, 6.88%
Taylor & Francis
37 publications, 5.78%
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
28 publications, 4.38%
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
15 publications, 2.34%
Frontiers Media S.A.
13 publications, 2.03%
Oxford University Press
12 publications, 1.88%
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
11 publications, 1.72%
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
7 publications, 1.09%
5 publications, 0.78%
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
4 publications, 0.63%
SAGE
3 publications, 0.47%
Hindawi Limited
3 publications, 0.47%
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
2 publications, 0.31%
American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
1 publication, 0.16%
World Scientific
1 publication, 0.16%
Walter de Gruyter
1 publication, 0.16%
American Society for Microbiology
1 publication, 0.16%
Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association
1 publication, 0.16%
IGI Global
1 publication, 0.16%
Palladin Institute of Biochemistry of the NASU
1 publication, 0.16%
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
1 publication, 0.16%
Autonomous Non-profit Organization Editorial Board of the journal Uspekhi Khimii
1 publication, 0.16%
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Truchon J., Bayly C. I. Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the “Early Recognition” Problem // Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2007. Vol. 47. No. 2. pp. 488-508.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Truchon J., Bayly C. I. Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the “Early Recognition” Problem // Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2007. Vol. 47. No. 2. pp. 488-508.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1021/ci600426e
UR - https://doi.org/10.1021/ci600426e
TI - Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the “Early Recognition” Problem
T2 - Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
AU - Bayly, Christopher I.
AU - Truchon, Jean-Francois
PY - 2007
DA - 2007/02/09
PB - American Chemical Society (ACS)
SP - 488-508
IS - 2
VL - 47
SN - 1549-9596
SN - 1549-960X
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex Copy
@article{2007_Truchon,
author = {Christopher I. Bayly and Jean-Francois Truchon},
title = {Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the “Early Recognition” Problem},
journal = {Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling},
year = {2007},
volume = {47},
publisher = {American Chemical Society (ACS)},
month = {feb},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/ci600426e},
number = {2},
pages = {488--508},
doi = {10.1021/ci600426e}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Truchon, Jean-Francois, and Christopher I. Bayly. “Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the “Early Recognition” Problem.” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 47, no. 2, Feb. 2007, pp. 488-508. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci600426e.
Found error?