This paper emphasizes the importance of rigorous validation as a crucial, integral component of Quantitative Structure Property Relationship (QSPR) model development. We consider some examples of published QSPR models, which in spite of their high fitted accuracy for the training sets and apparent mechanistic appeal, fail rigorous validation tests, and, thus, may lack practical utility as reliable screening tools. We present a set of simple guidelines for developing validated and predictive QSPR models. To this end, we discuss several validation strategies including (1) randomization of the modelled property, also called Y-scrambling, (2) multiple leave-many-out crossvalidations, and (3) external validation using rational division of a dataset into training and test sets. We also highlight the need to establish the domain of model applicability in the chemical space to flag molecules for which predictions may be unreliable, and discuss some algorithms that can be used for this purpose. We advocate the broad use of these guidelines in the development of predictive QSPR models.

The recent REACH Policy of the European Union has led to scientists and regulators to focus their attention on establishing general validation principles for QSAR models in the context of chemical regulation (previously known as the Setubal, nowadays, the OECD principles). This paper gives a brief analysis of some principles: unambiguous algorithm, Applicability Domain (AD), and statistical validation. Some concerns related to QSAR\ud algorithm reproducibility and an example of a fast check of the applicability domain for MLR models are presented. Common myths and misconceptions related to popular techniques for verifying internal predictivity, particularly for MLR models (for instance crossvalidation,\ud bootstrap), are commented on and compared with commonly used statistical techniques for external validation. The differences in the two validating approaches are highlighted, and evidence is presented that only models that have been validated externally, after their internal validation, can be considered reliable and applicable for both external prediction and regulatory purposes.\ud (“Validation is one of those words...that is constantly used and seldom defined” as stated by A. R. Feinstein in the book Multivariate Analysis: An Introduction, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1996)

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship modeling is one of the major computational tools employed in medicinal chemistry. However, throughout its entire history it has drawn both praise and criticism concerning its reliability, limitations, successes, and failures. In this paper, we discuss: (i) the development and evolution of QSAR; (ii) the current trends, unsolved problems, and pressing challenges; and (iii) several novel and emerging applications of QSAR modeling. Throughout this discussion, we provide guidelines for QSAR development, validation, and application, which are summarized in best practices for building rigorously validated and externally predictive QSAR models. We hope that this Perspective will help communications between computational and experimental chemists towards collaborative development and use of QSAR models. We also believe that the guidelines presented here will help journal editors and reviewers apply more stringent scientific standards to manuscripts reporting new QSAR studies, as well as encourage the use of high quality, validated QSARs for regulatory decision making.

This article provides an overview of methods for reliability assessment of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models in the context of regulatory acceptance of human health and environmental QSARs. Useful diagnostic tools and data analytical approaches are highlighted and exemplified. Particular emphasis is given to the question of how to define the applicability borders of a QSAR and how to estimate parameter and prediction uncertainty. The article ends with a discussion regarding QSAR acceptability criteria. This discussion contains a list of recommended acceptability criteria, and we give reference values for important QSAR performance statistics. Finally, we emphasize that rigorous and independent validation of QSARs is an essential step toward their regulatory acceptance and implementation.

No abstract