Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 792

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Machine Learning in Drug Discovery: A Review

Open access
Dara, Suresh, Dhamercherla, Swetha, Jadav, Surender Singh, Babu, CH Madhu, Ahsan, Mohamed Jawed·2022·Artificial Intelligence Review

Abstract

This review provides the feasible literature on drug discovery through ML tools and techniques that are enforced in every phase of drug development to accelerate the research process and deduce the risk and expenditure in clinical trials. Machine learning techniques improve the decision-making in pharmaceutical data across various applications like QSAR analysis, hit discoveries, de novo drug architectures to retrieve accurate outcomes. Target validation, prognostic biomarkers, digital pathology are considered under problem statements in this review. ML challenges must be applicable for the main cause of inadequacy in interpretability outcomes that may restrict the applications in drug discovery. In clinical trials, absolute and methodological data must be generated to tackle many puzzles in validating ML techniques, improving decision-making, promoting awareness in ML approaches, and deducing risk failures in drug discovery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10462-021-10058-4

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 792

Metadata

Authors
Dara, S., Dhamercherla, S., Jadav, S. S., Babu, C. M., & Ahsan, M. J.
Venue
Artificial Intelligence Review
Published
2021-08-11
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
1947-1999
ISSN
  • 0269-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7462
OpenAlex
W3189831819
Cited by
792
References
42
FWCI
53.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.