<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>16(1)</volume><submitter>Jimenes-Vargas K</submitter><pubmed_abstract>For understanding a chemical compound's mechanism of action and its side effects, as well as for drug discovery, it is crucial to predict its possible protein targets. This study examines 15 developed target-centric models (TCM) employing different molecular descriptions and machine learning algorithms. They were contrasted with 17 third-party models implemented as web tools (WTCM). In both sets of models, consensus strategies were implemented as potential improvement over individual predictions. The findings indicate that TCM reach f1-score values greater than 0.8. Comparing both approaches, the best TCM achieves values of 0.75, 0.61, 0.25 and 0.38 for true positive/negative rates (TPR, TNR) and false negative/positive rates (FNR, FPR); outperforming the best WTCM. Moreover, the consensus</pubmed_abstract><journal>Journal of cheminformatics</journal><pagination>27</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10919000</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Prediction of compound-target interaction using several artificial intelligence algorithms and comparison with a consensus-based strategy.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10919000</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Perez-Castillo Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jimenes-Vargas K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Munteanu CR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pazos A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tejera E</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Prediction of compound-target interaction using several artificial intelligence algorithms and comparison with a consensus-based strategy.</name><description>For understanding a chemical compound's mechanism of action and its side effects, as well as for drug discovery, it is crucial to predict its possible protein targets. This study examines 15 developed target-centric models (TCM) employing different molecular descriptions and machine learning algorithms. They were contrasted with 17 third-party models implemented as web tools (WTCM). In both sets of models, consensus strategies were implemented as potential improvement over individual predictions. The findings indicate that TCM reach f1-score values greater than 0.8. Comparing both approaches, the best TCM achieves values of 0.75, 0.61, 0.25 and 0.38 for true positive/negative rates (TPR, TNR) and false negative/positive rates (FNR, FPR); outperforming the best WTCM. Moreover, the consensus</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Mar</publication><modification>2026-06-12T10:06:19.804Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T12:34:52.972Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10919000</accession><cross_references><pubmed>38449058</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s13321-024-00816-1</doi></cross_references></HashMap>