Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Benchmarking Accuracy and Generalizability of Four Graph Neural Networks Using Large In Vitro ADME Datasets from Different Chemical Spaces

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2111.13964 v1 pith:O2SMFRY6 submitted 2021-11-27 q-bio.QM cs.LG

Benchmarking Accuracy and Generalizability of Four Graph Neural Networks Using Large In Vitro ADME Datasets from Different Chemical Spaces

classification q-bio.QM cs.LG
keywords modelsgraphnetworktraditionalaccuracybenchmarkfingerprintslearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we benchmark a variety of single- and multi-task graph neural network (GNN) models against lower-bar and higher-bar traditional machine learning approaches employing human engineered molecular features. We consider four GNN variants -- Graph Convolutional Network (GCN), Graph Attention Network (GAT), Message Passing Neural Network (MPNN), and Attentive Fingerprint (AttentiveFP). So far deep learning models have been primarily benchmarked using lower-bar traditional models solely based on fingerprints, while more realistic benchmarks employing fingerprints, whole-molecule descriptors and predictions from other related endpoints (e.g., LogD7.4) appear to be scarce for industrial ADME datasets. In addition to time-split test sets based on Genentech data, this study benefits from the availability of measurements from an external chemical space (Roche data). We identify GAT as a promising approach to implementing deep learning models. While all GNN models significantly outperform lower-bar benchmark traditional models solely based on fingerprints, only GATs seem to offer a small but consistent improvement over higher-bar benchmark traditional models. Finally, the accuracy of in vitro assays from different laboratories predicting the same experimental endpoints appears to be comparable with the accuracy of GAT single-task models, suggesting that most of the observed error from the models is a function of the experimental error propagation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.