The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Qualitative prediction of blood–brain barrier permeability on a large and refined dataset
Open accessAbstract
The prediction of blood-brain barrier permeation is vitally important for the optimization of drugs targeting the central nervous system as well as for avoiding side effects of peripheral drugs. Following a previously proposed model on blood-brain barrier penetration, we calculated the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the amphiphilic axis. We obtained a high correlation between calculated and experimental cross-sectional area (r = 0.898, n = 32). Based on these results, we examined a correlation of the calculated cross-sectional area with blood-brain barrier penetration given by logBB values. We combined various literature data sets to form a large-scale logBB dataset with 362 experimental logBB values. Quantitative models were calculated using bootstrap validated multiple linear regression. Qualitative models were built by a bootstrapped random forest algorithm. Both methods found similar descriptors such as polar surface area, pKa, logP, charges and number of positive ionisable groups to be predictive for logBB. In contrast to our initial assumption, we were not able to obtain models with the cross-sectional area chosen as relevant parameter for both approaches. Comparing those two different techniques, qualitative random forest models are better suited for blood-brain barrier permeability prediction, especially when reducing the number of descriptors and using a large dataset. A random forest prediction system (n(trees) = 5) based on only four descriptors yields a validated accuracy of 88%.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. (2001) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(00)00129-0 · Cited by 18,139
Cited by
A Bayesian Approach to in Silico Blood-Brain Barrier Penetration Modeling
Martins, I. F., Teixeira, A. L., Pinheiro, L., & Falcao, A. O. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci300124c · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Muehlbacher, M., Spitzer, G. M., Liedl, K. R., & Kornhuber, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
- Published
- 2011-11-23
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1095-1106
- ISSN
- 0920-654X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-4951
- OpenAlex
- W2043380313
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Qualitative prediction of blood–brain barrier permeability on a large and refined dataset. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10822-011-9478-1
- The paper
- Muehlbacher, M., Spitzer, G. M., Liedl, K. R., & Kornhuber, J. (2011). Qualitative prediction of blood–brain barrier permeability on a large and refined dataset. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-011-9478-1
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.