Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 6;14(7):2927–2941. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2024.03.002

Figure 3.

Figure 3

The performance comparison of ATC classification models and the off-target prediction results analysis of different ATC codes compounds/drugs. (A) The bars depict performances of MLKNN and ECFP_MLKNN models, where higher AUROC and mAP indicate better model performance, and lower rank loss indicates superior performance. Different colored bars represent different models, and y-axis represents the mean metric values of the five-fold cross-training. ManneWhitney U test is used to test for significant differences, where: ns indicates no significant difference; 0.001< ∗∗P < 0.01. (B) A bar chart displays the number of binding off-targets (y-axis) for the 14 categories of compounds (x-axis). (C) The heat map showcases the off-target panel prediction results for all study compounds. ATC codes (A–V) are represented on the y-axis, while target points are on the x-axis. Dark colors (value of 1.0) indicate binding, and light colors (value of 0.0) indicate no binding.