Comparison of the Predictive Performance and Interpretability of Random Forest and Linear Models on Benchmark Data Sets

The ability to interpret the predictions made by quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) offers a number of advantages. While QSARs built using nonlinear modeling approaches, such as the popular Random Forest algorithm, might sometimes be more predictive than those built using linear m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of chemical information and modeling 2017-08, Vol.57 (8), p.1773-1792
Hauptverfasser: Marchese Robinson, Richard L, Palczewska, Anna, Palczewski, Jan, Kidley, Nathan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1792
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1773
container_title Journal of chemical information and modeling
container_volume 57
creator Marchese Robinson, Richard L
Palczewska, Anna
Palczewski, Jan
Kidley, Nathan
description The ability to interpret the predictions made by quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) offers a number of advantages. While QSARs built using nonlinear modeling approaches, such as the popular Random Forest algorithm, might sometimes be more predictive than those built using linear modeling approaches, their predictions have been perceived as difficult to interpret. However, a growing number of approaches have been proposed for interpreting nonlinear QSAR models in general and Random Forest in particular. In the current work, we compare the performance of Random Forest to those of two widely used linear modeling approaches: linear Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (or Support Vector Regression (SVR)) and partial least-squares (PLS). We compare their performance in terms of their predictivity as well as the chemical interpretability of the predictions using novel scoring schemes for assessing heat map images of substructural contributions. We critically assess different approaches for interpreting Random Forest models as well as for obtaining predictions from the forest. We assess the models on a large number of widely employed public-domain benchmark data sets corresponding to regression and binary classification problems of relevance to hit identification and toxicology. We conclude that Random Forest typically yields comparable or possibly better predictive performance than the linear modeling approaches and that its predictions may also be interpreted in a chemically and biologically meaningful way. In contrast to earlier work looking at interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models, we directly compare two methodologically distinct approaches for interpreting Random Forest models. The approaches for interpreting Random Forest assessed in our article were implemented using open-source programs that we have made available to the community. These programs are the rfFC package (https://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=1725) for the R statistical programming language and the Python program HeatMapWrapper [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.495163] for heat map generation.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00753
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1950607164</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1950607164</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-8553c77cc6694b694c1934db85c700da767c7fc89228c5335a93a394d47664fa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMotlbvniTg1a3JZpNsjlqtFiqKH-AtZLNZurW7qUmq9L83_bx5GGZg3nsz_AA4x6iPUYqvlfb9qa6bPisQ4pQcgC6mmUgEQ5-Hu5kK1gEn3k8RIkSw9Bh00pxjmiLRBb8D28yVq71toa1gmBj44kxZ61D_xNG4yrpGtdpA1ZZw1Abj5s4EVdSzOixXlte4sA0cWmd8WKvGdWuUg0-2NDMPY_CtafWkUe4L3qmg4JsJ_hQcVWrmzdm298DH8P598JiMnx9Gg5txojLEQpJTSjTnWjMmsiKWxoJkZZFTzREqFWdc80rnIk1zTQmhShBFRFZmnLGsUqQHLje5c2e_F_FDObUL18aTEguKGOKYZVGFNirtrPfOVHLu6vjwUmIkV6RlJC1XpOWWdLRcbIMXRWPKvWGHNgquNoK1dX_0v7w_dBKKFA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1950607164</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Predictive Performance and Interpretability of Random Forest and Linear Models on Benchmark Data Sets</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Chemical Society Journals</source><creator>Marchese Robinson, Richard L ; Palczewska, Anna ; Palczewski, Jan ; Kidley, Nathan</creator><creatorcontrib>Marchese Robinson, Richard L ; Palczewska, Anna ; Palczewski, Jan ; Kidley, Nathan</creatorcontrib><description>The ability to interpret the predictions made by quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) offers a number of advantages. While QSARs built using nonlinear modeling approaches, such as the popular Random Forest algorithm, might sometimes be more predictive than those built using linear modeling approaches, their predictions have been perceived as difficult to interpret. However, a growing number of approaches have been proposed for interpreting nonlinear QSAR models in general and Random Forest in particular. In the current work, we compare the performance of Random Forest to those of two widely used linear modeling approaches: linear Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (or Support Vector Regression (SVR)) and partial least-squares (PLS). We compare their performance in terms of their predictivity as well as the chemical interpretability of the predictions using novel scoring schemes for assessing heat map images of substructural contributions. We critically assess different approaches for interpreting Random Forest models as well as for obtaining predictions from the forest. We assess the models on a large number of widely employed public-domain benchmark data sets corresponding to regression and binary classification problems of relevance to hit identification and toxicology. We conclude that Random Forest typically yields comparable or possibly better predictive performance than the linear modeling approaches and that its predictions may also be interpreted in a chemically and biologically meaningful way. In contrast to earlier work looking at interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models, we directly compare two methodologically distinct approaches for interpreting Random Forest models. The approaches for interpreting Random Forest assessed in our article were implemented using open-source programs that we have made available to the community. These programs are the rfFC package (https://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=1725) for the R statistical programming language and the Python program HeatMapWrapper [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.495163] for heat map generation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1549-9596</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1549-960X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00753</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28715209</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Benchmarking ; Benchmarks ; Comparative analysis ; Datasets ; Hot Temperature ; Informatics - methods ; Least-Squares Analysis ; Linear Models ; Linear programming ; Mathematical models ; Modelling ; Models, Molecular ; Molecular Conformation ; Performance prediction ; Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship ; Source programs ; Support Vector Machine ; Support vector machines ; Toxicology</subject><ispartof>Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2017-08, Vol.57 (8), p.1773-1792</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society</rights><rights>Copyright American Chemical Society Aug 28, 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-8553c77cc6694b694c1934db85c700da767c7fc89228c5335a93a394d47664fa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-8553c77cc6694b694c1934db85c700da767c7fc89228c5335a93a394d47664fa3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7648-8645</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00753$$EPDF$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00753$$EHTML$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2751,27055,27903,27904,56717,56767</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28715209$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Marchese Robinson, Richard L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palczewska, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palczewski, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kidley, Nathan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Predictive Performance and Interpretability of Random Forest and Linear Models on Benchmark Data Sets</title><title>Journal of chemical information and modeling</title><addtitle>J. Chem. Inf. Model</addtitle><description>The ability to interpret the predictions made by quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) offers a number of advantages. While QSARs built using nonlinear modeling approaches, such as the popular Random Forest algorithm, might sometimes be more predictive than those built using linear modeling approaches, their predictions have been perceived as difficult to interpret. However, a growing number of approaches have been proposed for interpreting nonlinear QSAR models in general and Random Forest in particular. In the current work, we compare the performance of Random Forest to those of two widely used linear modeling approaches: linear Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (or Support Vector Regression (SVR)) and partial least-squares (PLS). We compare their performance in terms of their predictivity as well as the chemical interpretability of the predictions using novel scoring schemes for assessing heat map images of substructural contributions. We critically assess different approaches for interpreting Random Forest models as well as for obtaining predictions from the forest. We assess the models on a large number of widely employed public-domain benchmark data sets corresponding to regression and binary classification problems of relevance to hit identification and toxicology. We conclude that Random Forest typically yields comparable or possibly better predictive performance than the linear modeling approaches and that its predictions may also be interpreted in a chemically and biologically meaningful way. In contrast to earlier work looking at interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models, we directly compare two methodologically distinct approaches for interpreting Random Forest models. The approaches for interpreting Random Forest assessed in our article were implemented using open-source programs that we have made available to the community. These programs are the rfFC package (https://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=1725) for the R statistical programming language and the Python program HeatMapWrapper [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.495163] for heat map generation.</description><subject>Benchmarking</subject><subject>Benchmarks</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Hot Temperature</subject><subject>Informatics - methods</subject><subject>Least-Squares Analysis</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>Linear programming</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Models, Molecular</subject><subject>Molecular Conformation</subject><subject>Performance prediction</subject><subject>Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship</subject><subject>Source programs</subject><subject>Support Vector Machine</subject><subject>Support vector machines</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><issn>1549-9596</issn><issn>1549-960X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMotlbvniTg1a3JZpNsjlqtFiqKH-AtZLNZurW7qUmq9L83_bx5GGZg3nsz_AA4x6iPUYqvlfb9qa6bPisQ4pQcgC6mmUgEQ5-Hu5kK1gEn3k8RIkSw9Bh00pxjmiLRBb8D28yVq71toa1gmBj44kxZ61D_xNG4yrpGtdpA1ZZw1Abj5s4EVdSzOixXlte4sA0cWmd8WKvGdWuUg0-2NDMPY_CtafWkUe4L3qmg4JsJ_hQcVWrmzdm298DH8P598JiMnx9Gg5txojLEQpJTSjTnWjMmsiKWxoJkZZFTzREqFWdc80rnIk1zTQmhShBFRFZmnLGsUqQHLje5c2e_F_FDObUL18aTEguKGOKYZVGFNirtrPfOVHLu6vjwUmIkV6RlJC1XpOWWdLRcbIMXRWPKvWGHNgquNoK1dX_0v7w_dBKKFA</recordid><startdate>20170828</startdate><enddate>20170828</enddate><creator>Marchese Robinson, Richard L</creator><creator>Palczewska, Anna</creator><creator>Palczewski, Jan</creator><creator>Kidley, Nathan</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7648-8645</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170828</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Predictive Performance and Interpretability of Random Forest and Linear Models on Benchmark Data Sets</title><author>Marchese Robinson, Richard L ; Palczewska, Anna ; Palczewski, Jan ; Kidley, Nathan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-8553c77cc6694b694c1934db85c700da767c7fc89228c5335a93a394d47664fa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Benchmarking</topic><topic>Benchmarks</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Hot Temperature</topic><topic>Informatics - methods</topic><topic>Least-Squares Analysis</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>Linear programming</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Models, Molecular</topic><topic>Molecular Conformation</topic><topic>Performance prediction</topic><topic>Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship</topic><topic>Source programs</topic><topic>Support Vector Machine</topic><topic>Support vector machines</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marchese Robinson, Richard L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palczewska, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palczewski, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kidley, Nathan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Journal of chemical information and modeling</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marchese Robinson, Richard L</au><au>Palczewska, Anna</au><au>Palczewski, Jan</au><au>Kidley, Nathan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Predictive Performance and Interpretability of Random Forest and Linear Models on Benchmark Data Sets</atitle><jtitle>Journal of chemical information and modeling</jtitle><addtitle>J. Chem. Inf. Model</addtitle><date>2017-08-28</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1773</spage><epage>1792</epage><pages>1773-1792</pages><issn>1549-9596</issn><eissn>1549-960X</eissn><abstract>The ability to interpret the predictions made by quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) offers a number of advantages. While QSARs built using nonlinear modeling approaches, such as the popular Random Forest algorithm, might sometimes be more predictive than those built using linear modeling approaches, their predictions have been perceived as difficult to interpret. However, a growing number of approaches have been proposed for interpreting nonlinear QSAR models in general and Random Forest in particular. In the current work, we compare the performance of Random Forest to those of two widely used linear modeling approaches: linear Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (or Support Vector Regression (SVR)) and partial least-squares (PLS). We compare their performance in terms of their predictivity as well as the chemical interpretability of the predictions using novel scoring schemes for assessing heat map images of substructural contributions. We critically assess different approaches for interpreting Random Forest models as well as for obtaining predictions from the forest. We assess the models on a large number of widely employed public-domain benchmark data sets corresponding to regression and binary classification problems of relevance to hit identification and toxicology. We conclude that Random Forest typically yields comparable or possibly better predictive performance than the linear modeling approaches and that its predictions may also be interpreted in a chemically and biologically meaningful way. In contrast to earlier work looking at interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models, we directly compare two methodologically distinct approaches for interpreting Random Forest models. The approaches for interpreting Random Forest assessed in our article were implemented using open-source programs that we have made available to the community. These programs are the rfFC package (https://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=1725) for the R statistical programming language and the Python program HeatMapWrapper [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.495163] for heat map generation.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><pmid>28715209</pmid><doi>10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00753</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7648-8645</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1549-9596
ispartof Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2017-08, Vol.57 (8), p.1773-1792
issn 1549-9596
1549-960X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1950607164
source MEDLINE; American Chemical Society Journals
subjects Benchmarking
Benchmarks
Comparative analysis
Datasets
Hot Temperature
Informatics - methods
Least-Squares Analysis
Linear Models
Linear programming
Mathematical models
Modelling
Models, Molecular
Molecular Conformation
Performance prediction
Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship
Source programs
Support Vector Machine
Support vector machines
Toxicology
title Comparison of the Predictive Performance and Interpretability of Random Forest and Linear Models on Benchmark Data Sets
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T01%3A28%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Predictive%20Performance%20and%20Interpretability%20of%20Random%20Forest%20and%20Linear%20Models%20on%20Benchmark%20Data%20Sets&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20chemical%20information%20and%20modeling&rft.au=Marchese%20Robinson,%20Richard%20L&rft.date=2017-08-28&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1773&rft.epage=1792&rft.pages=1773-1792&rft.issn=1549-9596&rft.eissn=1549-960X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00753&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1950607164%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1950607164&rft_id=info:pmid/28715209&rfr_iscdi=true