Yang Longzhi, Neagu Daniel, Cronin Mark T D, Hewitt Mark, Enoch Steven J, Madden Judith C, Przybylak Katarzyna
School of Computing, Informatics and Media, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.
The School of Pharmacy & Biomolecular Sciences, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK.
Mol Inform. 2013 Jan;32(1):65-78. doi: 10.1002/minf.201200082. Epub 2013 Jan 21.
Quality assessment (QA) requires high levels of domain-specific experience and knowledge. QA tasks for toxicological data are usually performed by human experts manually, although a number of quality evaluation schemes have been proposed in the literature. For instance, the most widely utilised Klimisch scheme1 defines four data quality categories in order to tag data instances with respect to their qualities; ToxRTool2 is an extension of the Klimisch approach aiming to increase the transparency and harmonisation of the approach. Note that the processes of QA in many other areas have been automatised by employing expert systems. Briefly, an expert system is a computer program that uses a knowledge base built upon human expertise, and an inference engine that mimics the reasoning processes of human experts to infer new statements from incoming data. In particular, expert systems have been extended to deal with the uncertainty of information by representing uncertain information (such as linguistic terms) as fuzzy sets under the framework of fuzzy set theory and performing inferences upon fuzzy sets according to fuzzy arithmetic. This paper presents an experimental fuzzy expert system for toxicological data QA which is developed on the basis of the Klimisch approach and the ToxRTool in an effort to illustrate the power of expert systems to toxicologists, and to examine if fuzzy expert systems are a viable solution for QA of toxicological data. Such direction still faces great difficulties due to the well-known common challenge of toxicological data QA that "five toxicologists may have six opinions". In the meantime, this challenge may offer an opportunity for expert systems because the construction and refinement of the knowledge base could be a converging process of different opinions which is of significant importance for regulatory policy making under the regulation of REACH, though a consensus may never be reached. Also, in order to facilitate the implementation of Weight of Evidence approaches and in silico modelling proposed by REACH, there is a higher appeal of numerical quality values than nominal (categorical) ones, where the proposed fuzzy expert system could help. Most importantly, the deriving processes of quality values generated in this way are fully transparent, and thus comprehensible, for final users, which is another vital point for policy making specified in REACH. Case studies have been conducted and this report not only shows the promise of the approach, but also demonstrates the difficulties of the approach and thus indicates areas for future development.
质量评估(QA)需要高水平的特定领域经验和知识。毒理学数据的质量评估任务通常由人类专家手动执行,尽管文献中已经提出了一些质量评估方案。例如,应用最广泛的克里米施方案1定义了四个数据质量类别,以便根据数据实例的质量对其进行标记;ToxRTool2是克里米施方法的扩展,旨在提高该方法的透明度和一致性。请注意,许多其他领域的质量评估过程已经通过使用专家系统实现了自动化。简而言之,专家系统是一种计算机程序,它使用基于人类专业知识构建的知识库,以及模仿人类专家推理过程以从传入数据中推断新陈述的推理引擎。特别是,专家系统已经扩展到通过在模糊集理论框架下将不确定信息(如语言术语)表示为模糊集,并根据模糊算法对模糊集进行推理来处理信息的不确定性。本文提出了一种用于毒理学数据质量评估的实验性模糊专家系统,该系统是在克里米施方法和ToxRTool的基础上开发的,旨在向毒理学家展示专家系统的能力,并研究模糊专家系统是否是毒理学数据质量评估的可行解决方案。由于毒理学数据质量评估中众所周知的共同挑战“五个毒理学家可能有六种意见”,这种方向仍然面临巨大困难。与此同时,这一挑战可能为专家系统提供机会,因为知识库的构建和完善可能是不同意见的汇聚过程,这对于在《化学品注册、评估、授权和限制法规》(REACH)监管下的监管政策制定具有重要意义,尽管可能永远无法达成共识。此外,为了促进REACH提出的证据权重方法和计算机模拟的实施,数值质量值比名义(分类)值更具吸引力,而本文提出的模糊专家系统可以提供帮助。最重要的是,以这种方式生成的质量值的推导过程对最终用户来说是完全透明的,因此是可理解的,这是REACH中规定的政策制定的另一个关键点。已经进行了案例研究,本报告不仅展示了该方法的前景,还展示了该方法的困难,从而指出了未来的发展方向。