Comment on “The power metric: a new statistically robust enrichment-type metric for virtual screening applications with early recovery capability”

Journal of Cheminformatics, Mar 2018

M. Šícho, M. Voršilák, D. Svozil

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs13321-018-0267-x.pdf

Comment on “The power metric: a new statistically robust enrichment-type metric for virtual screening applications with early recovery capability”

J Cheminform Comment on “ The power metric: a new statistically robust enrichment-type metric for virtual screening applications with early recovery capability” M. Šícho 0 M. Voršilák 0 D. Svozil 0 0 CZ‐OPENSCREEN:National Infrastructure for Chemical Biology, Department of Informatics and Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Chemistry and Technology Prague , Prague , Czech Republic Recently, a new metric for virtual screening applications was reported by Lopes et al. [1]. This metric is called the power metric (PM) as it is based on the principles of the statistical power of a hypothesis test. In this comment, we add to the original article and discuss the similarity of PM to precision (Pre) and draw new conclusions from their functional relationship. PM is defined as: - PM = TPR TPR + FPR and can be reformulated as follows: PM = = TPR = TP TP+FN TPR + FPR TPT+PFN + FPF+PTN N · TP N N·TP TP N · TP + P · FP = N ·TPN+P·FP = TP + NP FP TP P = TPP + FNP In this formula, P is a  total number of positive and N a  total number of negative examples in a data set. Similarly, Pre is defined as: TP TPR Pre = TP + FP = TPR + NP FPR From the comparisonPof Eqs.  2 and 3 follows that PM differs from Pre by the N term which precedes the number of false positives FP in PM. Thus, the influence of FP (1) (2) (3) in PM is decreased in imbalanced data sets with a high number of negative examples andP the magnitude of this effect directly depends on the N ratio. Due to this dependency, PM has the ability to cancel out the influence of negative examples and is, in this regard, more robust than Pre. Pre and PM are, however, not mutually exclusive and depend on each other. From Eqs.  1 and 3, the following functional relationship can be derived: PM Pre = = TPR TPR+FPR TPR TPR+ NP FPR = TPR + NP FPR TPR + FPR TPR + FPR − FPR + NP FPR TPR + FPR = 1 + NP − 1 FPR TPR + FPR Because of this relationship, both PM and Pre capture model performance trends in a very similar way as we will demonstrate further. Using the same approach as described in [ 1 ], we gen100 erated three models with NP = 9900: one of poor quality (λ = 3), one of good quality (λ = 10) and one of excellent quality (λ = 30) (Fig.  1). Each model yields an ordered set of compounds from which a fraction of molecules, defined by the cutoff threshold χ, is selected as hits (i.e., FP + TP). The influence of χ cutoff on both metrics in the early recovery region with χ < 0.1 is shown in Fig. 2. Figure  2 clearly shows that both PM and Pre capture the same trends, albeit at different scales. For a poor quality model, PM values varyP considerably more than Pre values, which is due to the N ratio. While PM is more P sensitive to the increase in accepted actives (N decreases (4) the influence of false positives for PM, see Eq.  2), Pre value shows less variance and it quickly approaches zero because the list of the top hits gets “flooded” with false positives. On the other hand, for good and excellent quality models we find more variance in Pre than in PM (Fig.  2). In particular for an excellent quality model, PM P varies very little, again due to the influence of N . Therefore using Pre, one can identify a range of χ values where a small shift in χ results in the acceptance of a large number of false positives (Fig.  2, black line segment). This effect is, however, not captured so distinctively by PM. Therefore, we may conclude that the main advantage of PM over Pre is its robustness with respect to the imbalance of positive and negative examples. However, PM fails to capture, especially for well-performing models, the influence of false positives. In addition, PM and Pre metrics are in a functional relationship. Therefore, if PM and Pre are used for the comparison of two different models on the same data set, the conclusions are the same irrespective of the metric. Lastly, it is also impor P tant to note that when the N ratio equals to 1 (i.e., in a balanced data set), PM and Pre become equivalent. In the end, we would like to emphasize that PM is not a suitable metric for the performance assessment of classification models. Similarly to Pre, it does not take into account the number of true or false negatives. Thus, it should be accompanied by a metric taking negative classifications into account, just as Pre is commonly reported together with a recall. This comment refers to the article available at https://doi. org/10.1186/s13321‑018‑0262‑2; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321‑016‑ 0189‑4. Authors’ contributions MS, MV and DS carried out the analyses. DS wrote the manuscript, MS and MV edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Author details 1 CZ‑OPENSCREEN:National Infrastructure for Chemical Biology, Department of Informatics and Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. 2 CZ‑OPEN‑ SCREEN: National Infrastructure for Chemica (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs13321-018-0267-x.pdf

M. Šícho, M. Voršilák, D. Svozil. Comment on “The power metric: a new statistically robust enrichment-type metric for virtual screening applications with early recovery capability”, Journal of Cheminformatics, 2018, pp. 13, Volume 10, Issue 1, DOI: 10.1186/s13321-018-0267-x