Skip to main content

Comparison of AdaBoost and Genetic Programming for Combining Neural Networks for Drug Discovery

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Applications of Evolutionary Computing (EvoWorkshops 2003)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2611))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Genetic programming (GP) based data fusion and AdaBoost can both improve in vitro prediction of Cytochrome P450 activity by combining artificial neural networks (ANN). Pharmaceutical drug design data provided by high throughput screening (HTS) is used to train many base ANN classifiers. In data mining (KDD) we must avoid over fitting. The ensembles do extrapolate from the training data to other unseen molecules. I.e. they predict inhibition of a P450 enzyme by compounds unlike the chemicals used to train them. Thus the models might provide in silico screens of virtual chemicals as well as physical ones from Glaxo SmithKline (GSK)’s cheminformatics database. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of boosted and evolved ensemble are given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Peter J. Angeline. Multiple interacting programs: A representation for evolving complex behaviors. Cybernetics and Systems, 29(8):779–806, November 1998.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ken Binmore. Fun and Games. D. C. Heath, Lexington, MA, USA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Leo Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24:123–140, 1996.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Chawla et al., 2002._N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16:321–357, 2002.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Yoav Freund and Robert E. Schapire. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In Machine Learning: Proceedings of the thirteenth International Conference, pages 148–156. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chris Gathercole and Peter Ross. Dynamic training subset selection for supervised learning in genetic programming. In Yuval Davidor, Hans-Paul Schwefel, and Reinhard Männer, editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature III, volume 866 of LNCS, pages 312–321, Jerusalem, 9-14 October 1994. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ajith H. Gunatilaka and Brian A. Baertlein. Featurelevel and decision level fusion of noncoincidently sampled sensors for land mine detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 23(6):577–589, June 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jacobs et al., 1991._Robert A. Jacobs, Michael I. Jordon, Steven J. Nowlan, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation, 3:79–87, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gareth Jones. Genetic and evolutionary algorithms. In Paul von Rague, editor, Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Josef Kittler and Fabio Roli, editors. Second International Conference on Multiple Classifier Systems, volume 2096 of LNCS, Cambridge, 2–4 July 2001. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Arthur K. Kordon and Guido F. Smits. Soft sensor development using genetic programming. In Lee Spector et al., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2001), pages 1346–1351, San Francisco, California, USA, 7-11 July 2001. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. A. Kupinski and M. A. Anastasio. Multiobjective genetic optimization of diagnostic classifiers with implications for generating receiver operating characteristic curves. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 18(8):675–685, Aug 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kupinski et al., 2000._Matthew A. Kupinski, Mark A. Anastasio, and Maryellem L. Giger. Multiobjective genetic optimization of diagnostic classifiers used in the computerized detection of mass lesions in mammography. In Kenneth M. Hanson, editor, SPIE Medical Imaging Conference, volume 3979, San Diego, California, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W. B. Langdon and B. F. Buxton. Genetic programming for combining classifiers. In Lee Spector et al., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2001), pages 66–73, San Francisco, California, USA, 7-11 July 2001. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  15. W. B. Langdon and B. F. Buxton. Genetic programming for improved receiver operating characteristics. In Josef Kittler and Fabio Roli, editors, Second International Conference on Multiple Classifier System, volume 2096 of LNCS, pages 68–77, Cambridge, 2-4 July 2001. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  16. William B. Langdon and Bernard F. Buxton. Evolving receiver operating characteristics for data fusion. In Julian F. Miller et al., editors, Genetic Programming, Proceedings of EuroGP’2001, volume 2038 of LNCS, pages 87–96, Lake Como, Italy, 18-20 April 2001. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Langdon et al., 1999._William B. Langdon, Terry Soule, Riccardo Poli, and James A. Foster. The evolution of size and shape. In Lee Spector, William B. Langdon, UnaMay O’Reilly, and Peter J. Angeline, editors, Advances in Genetic Programming 3, chapter 8, pages 163–190. MIT Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Langdon et al., 2001._W. B. Langdon, S. J. Barrett, and B. F. Buxton. Genetic programming for combining neural networks for drug discovery. In Rajkumar Roy et al., editors, Soft Computing and Industry Recent Applications, pages 597–608. Springer-Verlag, 10-24 September 2001. Published 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Langdon et al., 2002._William B. Langdon, S. J. Barrett, and B. F. Buxton. Combining decision trees and neural networks for drug discovery. In James A. Foster et al., editors, Genetic Programming, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference, EuroGP 2002, volume 2278 of LNCS, pages 60–70, Kinsale, Ireland, 3-5 April 2002. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  20. William B. Langdon. Genetic Programming and Data Structures. Kluwer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  21. William B. Langdon. Size fair and homologous tree genetic programming crossovers. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 1(1/2):95–119, April 2000.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. David W. Opitz and Jude W. Shavlik. Actively searching for an effective neural-network ensemble. Connection Science, 8(3–4):337–353, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Foster Provost and Tom Fawcett. Robust classification for imprecise environments. Machine Learning, 42(3):203–231, March 2001.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Holger Schwenk and Yoshua Bengio. Boosting neural networks. Neural Computation, 12(8):1869–1887, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scott et al., 1998._M. J. J. Scott, M. Niranjan, and R. W. Prager. Realisable classifiers: Improving operating performance on variable cost problems. In Paul H. Lewis and Mark S. Nixon, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth British Machine Vision Conference, volume 1, pages 304–315, University of Southampton, UK, 14-17 September 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Terence Soule. Voting teams: A cooperative approach to non-typical problems using genetic programming. In Wolfgang Banzhaf et al., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, volume 1, pages 916–922, Orlando, Florida, USA, 13-17 July 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Swets et al., 2000._John A. Swets, Robyn M. Dawes, and John Monahan. Better decisions through science. Scientific American, 283(4):70–75, October 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peter D. Turney. Cost-sensitive classification: Empirical evaluation of a hybrid genetic decision tree induction algorithm. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2:369–409, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Langdon, W.B., Barrett, S.J., Buxton, B.F. (2003). Comparison of AdaBoost and Genetic Programming for Combining Neural Networks for Drug Discovery. In: Cagnoni, S., et al. Applications of Evolutionary Computing. EvoWorkshops 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2611. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36605-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36605-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00976-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36605-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics