A Comparison of Scaling Methods to Obtain Calibrated Probabilities of Activity for Ligand-Target Predictions

07 May 2020, Version 2
This content is a preprint and has not undergone peer review at the time of posting.


In the context of bioactivity prediction, the question of how to calibrate a score produced by a machine learning method into reliable probability of binding to a protein target is not yet satisfactorily addressed. In this study, we compared the performance of three such methods, namely Platt Scaling, Isotonic Regression and Venn-ABERS in calibrating prediction scores for ligand-target prediction comprising the Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machines and Random Forest algorithms with bioactivity data available at AstraZeneca (40 million data points (compound-target pairs) across 2112 targets). Performance was assessed using Stratified Shuffle Split (SSS) and Leave 20% of Scaffolds Out (L20SO) validation.


in silico target prediction
QSAR Modeling
probability threshold
probability calibration
probability scaling
venn abers
venn predictors
isotonic regression
platt scaling

Supplementary materials

Mervin Manuscript


Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.