mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Investigation of a Data Split Strategy Involving the Time Axis in Adverse Event Prediction Using Machine Learning

arXiv 2204.08682 ↗First posted 19 Apr 2022cs.LG q-bio.QMcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Adverse events are a serious issue in drug development and many prediction methods using machine learning have been developed. The random split cross-validation is the de facto standard for model building and evaluation in machine learning, but care should be taken in adverse event prediction because this approach does not match to the real-world situation. The time split, which uses the time axis, is considered suitable for real-world prediction. However, the differences in model performance obtained using the time and random splits are not clear due to the lack of the comparable studies. To understand the differences, we compared the model performance between the time and random splits using nine types of compound information as input, eight adverse events as targets, and six machine learning algorithms. The random split showed higher area under the curve values than did the time split for six of eight targets. The chemical spaces of the training and test datasets of the time split were similar, suggesting that the concept of applicability domain is insufficient to explain the differences derived from the splitting. The area under the curve differences were smaller for the protein interaction than for the other datasets. Subsequent detailed analyses suggested the danger of confounding in the use of knowledge-based information in the time split. These findings indicate the importance of understanding the differences between the time and random splits in adverse event prediction and strongly suggest that appropriate use of the splitting strategies and interpretation of results are necessary for the real-world prediction of adverse events. We provide analysis code and datasets used in the present study (https://github.com/mizuno-group/AE_prediction).

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 103 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2022.

Builds on

18 of 103 references.

References · 18

  1. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,143
  2. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,539
  3. 2014Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networkscited by 2,981
  4. 2018UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reductioncited by 2,870
  5. 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,472
  6. 2014On the Properties of Neural Machine Translation: Encoder-Decoder Approachescited by 1,303
  7. 2016Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of moleculescited by 764
  8. 2015Convolutional Networks on Graphs for Learning Molecular Fingerprintscited by 753
  9. 2015Generating Sentences from a Continuous Spacecited by 609
  10. 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 368
  11. 2020How Neural Networks Extrapolate: From Feedforward to Graph Neural Networkscited by 219
  12. 2020Molecule Attention Transformercited by 92
6 more
  1. 2021Learning to Extend Molecular Scaffolds with Structural Motifscited by 70
  2. 2017SMILES Enumeration as Data Augmentation for Neural Network Modeling of Moleculescited by 58
  3. 2021Generative Chemical Transformer: Neural Machine Learning of Molecular Geometric Structures from Chemical Language via Attentioncited by 20
  4. 2021Interpreting Deep Learning Models in Natural Language Processing: A Reviewcited by 19
  5. 2017In silico generation of novel, drug-like chemical matter using the LSTM neural networkcited by 7
  6. 2018Accelerating Prototype-Based Drug Discovery using Conditional Diversity Networkscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

3 papers.