PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12074384

QSAR's based on partial order ranking.

Abstract

The development of Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSAR's) often relies heavily on the application of statistical methods such as multi-linear regression (MLR) or principal component analysis/partial least square (PCA/PLS). Partial order ranking (POR), which from a mathematical point of view is based on elementary methods of Discrete Mathematics, appears as an attractive and operationally simple and more general alternative since the method does not require specific functional relationships between the single descriptors or the end-points. The POR method allows ranking of a series of compounds, based on selected descriptors characterizing their structural and/or electronic nature (model diagram). The ranking of the compounds based on their end-points (experimental ranking) can then be compared to the model diagram. If the model diagram resembles the experimental ranking of the end-points under investigation, other compounds, not being experimentally investigated, can be assigned a rank in the model and hereby obtain an identity based on the known compounds. The present study elucidates the applicability of POR as a simple tool for QSAR modeling. Based on illustrative examples the POR approach to QSAR modeling will be presented with special focus on the precision and the uncertainties of the method, which will be discussed in terms of the number of descriptors and compounds involved. The advantageous interplay between POR and PCA, the latter being applied in order to reduce a possible large number of descriptors into a limited number of latent descriptors will be discussed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Carlsen, P B Sørensen, M Thomsen, R Brüggemann. 2002. QSAR's based on partial order ranking.. https://doi.org/10.1080/10629360290002307

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cancer outcomes measurement: Through the lens of the Medical Outcomes Trust framework.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the U.S. National Cancer Institute established the Cancer Outcomes Measurement Working Group (COMWG) to evaluate and advance the state of the science in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement, with a focus on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). To guide its work, the COMWG adopted the revised Medical Outcomes Trust (MOT) attributes and review criteria for evaluating health status and quality-of-life instruments. OBJECTIVE: With the MOT attributes providing the organizing principle, this paper summarizes and draws inferences from key COMWG findings about the methodological soundness of HRQOL assessment in cancer and steps required to move the field forward. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Across a range of cancer research applications, especially clinical trials, a variety of generic, general cancer, and cancer site-specific measures of HRQOL have demonstrated adequate reliability, validity, responsiveness, feasibility, and cultural and language adaptation. Methodological challenges remain in the interpretability of HRQOL measures, though substantial progress has been made in defining a "minimum important difference" in scale scores. Much work remains in forging a stronger link between the conceptual model and measurement model in HRQOL instrumentation. Progress along all MOT attributes will likely accelerate with the growing application of modern psychometrics, particularly item response theory modeling, which provides the underpinnings for item banking and computer-adaptive assessment of HRQOL. Future research should emphasize prospectively designed studies to evaluate PRO measures within the MOT framework and in-depth investigations of the role of PRO measures in cancer decision making at all levels.

Endpoint Determination↗

A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints.

Publication bias and related bias in meta-analysis is often examined by visually checking for asymmetry in funnel plots of treatment effect against its standard error. Formal statistical tests of funnel plot asymmetry have been proposed, but when applied to binary outcome data these can give false-positive rates that are higher than the nominal level in some situations (large treatment effects, or few events per trial, or all trials of similar sizes). We develop a modified linear regression test for funnel plot asymmetry based on the efficient score and its variance, Fisher's information. The performance of this test is compared to the other proposed tests in simulation analyses based on the characteristics of published controlled trials. When there is little or no between-trial heterogeneity, this modified test has a false-positive rate close to the nominal level while maintaining similar power to the original linear regression test ('Egger' test). When the degree of between-trial heterogeneity is large, none of the tests that have been proposed has uniformly good properties.

Endpoint Determination↗

Impact of pelvic nodal irradiation with intensity-modulated radiotherapy on treatment of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of treating the pelvic lymphatic regions during prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with respect to our routine acceptance criteria. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A series of 10 previously treated prostate patients were randomly selected and the pelvic lymphatic regions delineated on the fused magnetic resonance/computed tomography data sets. A targeting progression was formed from the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles only to the inclusion of all pelvic lymphatic regions and presacral region resulting in 5 planning scenarios of increasing geometric difficulty. IMRT plans were generated for each stage for two accelerator manufacturers. Dose volume histogram data were analyzed with respect to dose to the planning target volumes, rectum, bladder, bowel, and normal tissue. Analysis was performed for the number of segments required, monitor units, "hot spots," and treatment time. RESULTS: Both rectal endpoints were met for all targets. Bladder endpoints were not met and the bowel endpoint was met in 40% of cases with the inclusion of the extended and presacral lymphatics. A significant difference was found in the number of segments and monitor units with targeting progression and between accelerators, with the smaller beamlets yielding poorer results. Treatment times between the 2 linacs did not exhibit a clinically significant difference when compared. CONCLUSIONS: Many issues should be considered with pelvic lymphatic irradiation during IMRT delivery for prostate cancer including dose per fraction, normal structure dose/volume limits, planning target volumes generation, localization, treatment time, and increased radiation leakage. We would suggest that, at a minimum, the endpoints used in this work be evaluated before beginning IMRT pelvic nodal irradiation.

Endpoint Determination↗