Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Summary of the Siamese graph convolutional network-based transfer learning workflow (SGT).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Data distribution of the drug datasets.

The first graph in the first row is an overview of the proportions of positive drug samples of the targets in datasets a Tox21, b MUV, c PCBA, and d Toxcast, and other graphs show in detail the distribution of positive samples in each dataset.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

A graphical representation of the network described in this article.

a Siamese graph convolutional neural network with shared weights, b graph convolution operation, c graph pooling operation, and d graph gathering operation in the network.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The transfer learning workflow for data-poor targets.

Two stages are used to transfer model parameters from data-rich targets to data-poor targets in specific datasets.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Performance comparison between our model and the baseline model in multitask classification and regression tasks.

The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve of various models in the a Tox21 and b Freesolv datasets.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Performance comparison between our model and the baseline model in multitask classification tasks.

The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve of various models in the a PCBA and b MUV datasets.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Performance comparison between our model and the baseline model in multitask classification tasks.

The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve of various models in the a HIV and b Toxcast datasets.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Performance comparison between our model and the baseline model in the regression task.

a RMSE and b MAE (kcal/mol) are provided to perfectly reflect the performance of the models in the regression task of the Freesolv dataset.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

The correlation between predictions and observations of our model on different tasks in tox21 data set (index split).

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

The correlation between predictions and observations of our model on different tasks in tox21 data set (random split).

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

The correlation between predictions and observations of our model on different tasks in tox21 data set (scaffold split).

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 1.

The area under curve (AUC) of the ROC curve of various models in Tox21, ToxCast, MUV and HIV data sets.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

The Performances in FreeSolv data set.

R2, RMSE and MAE (kcal/mol) are provided to reflect the performance of the models.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 12.

An example diagram showing the correlation between atomic and molecular toxicity using similarity maps.

Red represents a higher correlation, and green represents a lower correlation.

More »

Fig 12 Expand