Exploring machine learning methods for absolute configuration determination with vibrational circular dichroism

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (35) ◽  
pp. 19781-19789
Author(s):  
Tom Vermeyen ◽  
Jure Brence ◽  
Robin Van Echelpoel ◽  
Roy Aerts ◽  
Guillaume Acke ◽  
...  

The capabilities of machine learning models to extract the absolute configuration of a series of compounds from their vibrational circular dichroism spectra have been demonstrated. The important spectral areas are identified.

Chirality ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 731-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Minick ◽  
Royston C.B. Copley ◽  
Jerzy R. Szewczyk ◽  
Randy D. Rutkowske ◽  
Luke A. Miller

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1386-1389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenta Komori ◽  
Tohru Taniguchi ◽  
Shoma Mizutani ◽  
Kenji Monde ◽  
Kouji Kuramochi ◽  
...  

Chirality ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (S1) ◽  
pp. S101-S108 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Dunmire ◽  
Teresa B. Freedman ◽  
Laurence A. Nafie ◽  
Christine Aeschlimann ◽  
John G. Gerber ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (20-21) ◽  
pp. 1418-1423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail I. Buendía-Trujillo ◽  
J. Martín Torrres-Valencia ◽  
Pedro Joseph-Nathan ◽  
Eleuterio Burgueño-Tapia

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chen ◽  
Gaurav Goyal ◽  
Ronald S. Go ◽  
Sameer A. Parikh ◽  
Che G. Ngufor

PURPOSE Time to event is an important aspect of clinical decision making. This is particularly true when diseases have highly heterogeneous presentations and prognoses, as in chronic lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL). Although machine learning methods can readily learn complex nonlinear relationships, many methods are criticized as inadequate because of limited interpretability. We propose using unsupervised clustering of the continuous output of machine learning models to provide discrete risk stratification for predicting time to first treatment in a cohort of patients with CLL. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 737 treatment-naïve patients with CLL diagnosed at Mayo Clinic were included in this study. We compared predictive abilities for two survival models (Cox proportional hazards and random survival forest) and four classification methods (logistic regression, support vector machines, random forest, and gradient boosting machine). Probability of treatment was then stratified. RESULTS Machine learning methods did not yield significantly more accurate predictions of time to first treatment. However, automated risk stratification provided by clustering was able to better differentiate patients who were at risk for treatment within 1 year than models developed using standard survival analysis techniques. CONCLUSION Clustering the posterior probabilities of machine learning models provides a way to better interpret machine learning models.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document