Loading…

A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is widely used to evaluate virtual screening (VS) studies. However, the method fails to address the "early recognition" problem specific to VS. Although many other metrics, such as RIE, BEDROC, and pROC that emphasize "early recognition&qu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC bioinformatics 2009-07, Vol.10 (1), p.225-225, Article 225
Main Authors: Zhao, Wei, Hevener, Kirk E, White, Stephen W, Lee, Richard E, Boyett, James M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b720t-68d872e7d34cb9925694da31cd3a0be4ea283001d6358dee2b1a65d2f1b1f97c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b720t-68d872e7d34cb9925694da31cd3a0be4ea283001d6358dee2b1a65d2f1b1f97c3
container_end_page 225
container_issue 1
container_start_page 225
container_title BMC bioinformatics
container_volume 10
creator Zhao, Wei
Hevener, Kirk E
White, Stephen W
Lee, Richard E
Boyett, James M
description Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is widely used to evaluate virtual screening (VS) studies. However, the method fails to address the "early recognition" problem specific to VS. Although many other metrics, such as RIE, BEDROC, and pROC that emphasize "early recognition" have been proposed, there are no rigorous statistical guidelines for determining the thresholds and performing significance tests. Also no comparisons have been made between these metrics under a statistical framework to better understand their performances. We have proposed a statistical framework to evaluate VS studies by which the threshold to determine whether a ranking method is better than random ranking can be derived by bootstrap simulations and 2 ranking methods can be compared by permutation test. We found that different metrics emphasize "early recognition" differently. BEDROC and RIE are 2 statistically equivalent metrics. Our newly proposed metric SLR is superior to pROC. Through extensive simulations, we observed a "seesaw effect" - overemphasizing early recognition reduces the statistical power of a metric to detect true early recognitions. The statistical framework developed and tested by us is applicable to any other metric as well, even if their exact distribution is unknown. Under this framework, a threshold can be easily selected according to a pre-specified type I error rate and statistical comparisons between 2 ranking methods becomes possible. The theoretical null distribution of SLR metric is available so that the threshold of SLR can be exactly determined without resorting to bootstrap simulations, which makes it easy to use in practical virtual screening studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1471-2105-10-225
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_3a5e29c507dd441c90e2a37049e3faa9</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A205129430</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3a5e29c507dd441c90e2a37049e3faa9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A205129430</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b720t-68d872e7d34cb9925694da31cd3a0be4ea283001d6358dee2b1a65d2f1b1f97c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ktuL1DAUh4so7rr67pMMCKIPXXNpkuZlYRi8DCwIXp7DaXI6Zm2bNUlH_e_NOMO6Iyp9aDnny8fp-aWqHlNyTmkrX9JG0ZpRImpKasbEner0pnT31vdJ9SClK0Koaom4X51QLanmRJ5WYrlIGbJP2VsYFn2EEb-F-GWRwwK3MMyQcbH1Mc-lm2xEnPy0eVjd62FI-OjwPqs-vX71cfW2vnz3Zr1aXtadYiTXsnWtYqgcb2ynNRNSNw44tY4D6bBBYC0vUznJResQWUdBCsd62tFeK8vPqvXe6wJcmevoR4g_TABvfhVC3BiIZfIBDQeBTFtBlHNNQ60myIAr0mjkPYAurou963ruRnQWpxxhOJIedyb_2WzC1jDFmBSiCFZ7QefDPwTHHRtGs4vA7CIwlJiSULE8O4wRw9cZUzajTxaHASYMczJSCamUIgV8_l-QMlE4JtgOffoHehXmOJVkCsUobUTLZKHO99QGyr781IcypS2Pw9HbMGHvS33JiKBMN3ynfXF0oDAZv-cNzCmZ9Yf3xyzZszaGlCL2N3sp_727q3_bxJPbgfw-cLic_CdbmOH5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1221145826</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening</title><source>PubMed Central Free</source><source>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Zhao, Wei ; Hevener, Kirk E ; White, Stephen W ; Lee, Richard E ; Boyett, James M</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Wei ; Hevener, Kirk E ; White, Stephen W ; Lee, Richard E ; Boyett, James M</creatorcontrib><description>Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is widely used to evaluate virtual screening (VS) studies. However, the method fails to address the "early recognition" problem specific to VS. Although many other metrics, such as RIE, BEDROC, and pROC that emphasize "early recognition" have been proposed, there are no rigorous statistical guidelines for determining the thresholds and performing significance tests. Also no comparisons have been made between these metrics under a statistical framework to better understand their performances. We have proposed a statistical framework to evaluate VS studies by which the threshold to determine whether a ranking method is better than random ranking can be derived by bootstrap simulations and 2 ranking methods can be compared by permutation test. We found that different metrics emphasize "early recognition" differently. BEDROC and RIE are 2 statistically equivalent metrics. Our newly proposed metric SLR is superior to pROC. Through extensive simulations, we observed a "seesaw effect" - overemphasizing early recognition reduces the statistical power of a metric to detect true early recognitions. The statistical framework developed and tested by us is applicable to any other metric as well, even if their exact distribution is unknown. Under this framework, a threshold can be easily selected according to a pre-specified type I error rate and statistical comparisons between 2 ranking methods becomes possible. The theoretical null distribution of SLR metric is available so that the threshold of SLR can be exactly determined without resorting to bootstrap simulations, which makes it easy to use in practical virtual screening studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2105</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2105</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-225</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19619306</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Bioinformatics ; Computational biology ; Computational Biology - methods ; Drugs ; Gene Expression Profiling - methods ; Hypotheses ; Methodology ; Models, Statistical ; Pharmaceutical industry ; Product development ; ROC Curve ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Statistics ; Studies</subject><ispartof>BMC bioinformatics, 2009-07, Vol.10 (1), p.225-225, Article 225</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2009 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2009 Zhao et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2009 Zhao et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009 Zhao et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b720t-68d872e7d34cb9925694da31cd3a0be4ea283001d6358dee2b1a65d2f1b1f97c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b720t-68d872e7d34cb9925694da31cd3a0be4ea283001d6358dee2b1a65d2f1b1f97c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722655/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1221145826?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619306$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hevener, Kirk E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Stephen W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Richard E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyett, James M</creatorcontrib><title>A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening</title><title>BMC bioinformatics</title><addtitle>BMC Bioinformatics</addtitle><description>Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is widely used to evaluate virtual screening (VS) studies. However, the method fails to address the "early recognition" problem specific to VS. Although many other metrics, such as RIE, BEDROC, and pROC that emphasize "early recognition" have been proposed, there are no rigorous statistical guidelines for determining the thresholds and performing significance tests. Also no comparisons have been made between these metrics under a statistical framework to better understand their performances. We have proposed a statistical framework to evaluate VS studies by which the threshold to determine whether a ranking method is better than random ranking can be derived by bootstrap simulations and 2 ranking methods can be compared by permutation test. We found that different metrics emphasize "early recognition" differently. BEDROC and RIE are 2 statistically equivalent metrics. Our newly proposed metric SLR is superior to pROC. Through extensive simulations, we observed a "seesaw effect" - overemphasizing early recognition reduces the statistical power of a metric to detect true early recognitions. The statistical framework developed and tested by us is applicable to any other metric as well, even if their exact distribution is unknown. Under this framework, a threshold can be easily selected according to a pre-specified type I error rate and statistical comparisons between 2 ranking methods becomes possible. The theoretical null distribution of SLR metric is available so that the threshold of SLR can be exactly determined without resorting to bootstrap simulations, which makes it easy to use in practical virtual screening studies.</description><subject>Bioinformatics</subject><subject>Computational biology</subject><subject>Computational Biology - methods</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Gene Expression Profiling - methods</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical industry</subject><subject>Product development</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1471-2105</issn><issn>1471-2105</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ktuL1DAUh4so7rr67pMMCKIPXXNpkuZlYRi8DCwIXp7DaXI6Zm2bNUlH_e_NOMO6Iyp9aDnny8fp-aWqHlNyTmkrX9JG0ZpRImpKasbEner0pnT31vdJ9SClK0Koaom4X51QLanmRJ5WYrlIGbJP2VsYFn2EEb-F-GWRwwK3MMyQcbH1Mc-lm2xEnPy0eVjd62FI-OjwPqs-vX71cfW2vnz3Zr1aXtadYiTXsnWtYqgcb2ynNRNSNw44tY4D6bBBYC0vUznJResQWUdBCsd62tFeK8vPqvXe6wJcmevoR4g_TABvfhVC3BiIZfIBDQeBTFtBlHNNQ60myIAr0mjkPYAurou963ruRnQWpxxhOJIedyb_2WzC1jDFmBSiCFZ7QefDPwTHHRtGs4vA7CIwlJiSULE8O4wRw9cZUzajTxaHASYMczJSCamUIgV8_l-QMlE4JtgOffoHehXmOJVkCsUobUTLZKHO99QGyr781IcypS2Pw9HbMGHvS33JiKBMN3ynfXF0oDAZv-cNzCmZ9Yf3xyzZszaGlCL2N3sp_727q3_bxJPbgfw-cLic_CdbmOH5</recordid><startdate>20090720</startdate><enddate>20090720</enddate><creator>Zhao, Wei</creator><creator>Hevener, Kirk E</creator><creator>White, Stephen W</creator><creator>Lee, Richard E</creator><creator>Boyett, James M</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</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>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090720</creationdate><title>A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening</title><author>Zhao, Wei ; Hevener, Kirk E ; White, Stephen W ; Lee, Richard E ; Boyett, James M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b720t-68d872e7d34cb9925694da31cd3a0be4ea283001d6358dee2b1a65d2f1b1f97c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Bioinformatics</topic><topic>Computational biology</topic><topic>Computational Biology - methods</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Gene Expression Profiling - methods</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical industry</topic><topic>Product development</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hevener, Kirk E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Stephen W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Richard E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyett, James M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer science database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMC bioinformatics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhao, Wei</au><au>Hevener, Kirk E</au><au>White, Stephen W</au><au>Lee, Richard E</au><au>Boyett, James M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening</atitle><jtitle>BMC bioinformatics</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Bioinformatics</addtitle><date>2009-07-20</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>225</spage><epage>225</epage><pages>225-225</pages><artnum>225</artnum><issn>1471-2105</issn><eissn>1471-2105</eissn><abstract>Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is widely used to evaluate virtual screening (VS) studies. However, the method fails to address the "early recognition" problem specific to VS. Although many other metrics, such as RIE, BEDROC, and pROC that emphasize "early recognition" have been proposed, there are no rigorous statistical guidelines for determining the thresholds and performing significance tests. Also no comparisons have been made between these metrics under a statistical framework to better understand their performances. We have proposed a statistical framework to evaluate VS studies by which the threshold to determine whether a ranking method is better than random ranking can be derived by bootstrap simulations and 2 ranking methods can be compared by permutation test. We found that different metrics emphasize "early recognition" differently. BEDROC and RIE are 2 statistically equivalent metrics. Our newly proposed metric SLR is superior to pROC. Through extensive simulations, we observed a "seesaw effect" - overemphasizing early recognition reduces the statistical power of a metric to detect true early recognitions. The statistical framework developed and tested by us is applicable to any other metric as well, even if their exact distribution is unknown. Under this framework, a threshold can be easily selected according to a pre-specified type I error rate and statistical comparisons between 2 ranking methods becomes possible. The theoretical null distribution of SLR metric is available so that the threshold of SLR can be exactly determined without resorting to bootstrap simulations, which makes it easy to use in practical virtual screening studies.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>19619306</pmid><doi>10.1186/1471-2105-10-225</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1471-2105
ispartof BMC bioinformatics, 2009-07, Vol.10 (1), p.225-225, Article 225
issn 1471-2105
1471-2105
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_3a5e29c507dd441c90e2a37049e3faa9
source PubMed Central Free; ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database
subjects Bioinformatics
Computational biology
Computational Biology - methods
Drugs
Gene Expression Profiling - methods
Hypotheses
Methodology
Models, Statistical
Pharmaceutical industry
Product development
ROC Curve
Statistical analysis
Statistical methods
Statistics
Studies
title A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T07%3A55%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20statistical%20framework%20to%20evaluate%20virtual%20screening&rft.jtitle=BMC%20bioinformatics&rft.au=Zhao,%20Wei&rft.date=2009-07-20&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=225&rft.epage=225&rft.pages=225-225&rft.artnum=225&rft.issn=1471-2105&rft.eissn=1471-2105&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1471-2105-10-225&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA205129430%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b720t-68d872e7d34cb9925694da31cd3a0be4ea283001d6358dee2b1a65d2f1b1f97c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1221145826&rft_id=info:pmid/19619306&rft_galeid=A205129430&rfr_iscdi=true