The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of the NCI Open Database with Seven Large Chemical Structural Databases
Abstract
Eight large chemical databases have been analyzed and compared to each other. Central to this comparison is the open National Cancer Institute (NCI) database, consisting of approximately 250 000 structures. The other databases analyzed are the Available Chemicals Directory ("ACD," from MDL, release 1.99, 3D-version); the ChemACX ("ACX," from CamSoft, Version 4.5); the Maybridge Catalog and the Asinex database (both as distributed by CamSoft as part of ChemInfo 4.5); the Sigma-Aldrich Catalog (CD-ROM, 1999 Version); the World Drug Index ("WDI," Derwent, version 1999.03); and the organic part of the Cambridge Crystallographic Database ("CSD," from Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center, 1999 Version 5.18). The database properties analyzed are internal duplication rates; compounds unique to each database; cumulative occurrence of compounds in an increasing number of databases; overlap of identical compounds between two databases; similarity overlap; diversity; and others. The crystallographic database CSD and the WDI show somewhat less overlap with the other databases than those with each other. In particular the collections of commercial compounds and compilations of vendor catalogs have a substantial degree of overlap among each other. Still, no database is completely a subset of any other, and each appears to have its own niche and thus "raison d'être". The NCI database has by far the highest number of compounds that are unique to it. Approximately 200 000 of the NCI structures were not found in any of the other analyzed databases.
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
A Scoring Scheme for Discriminating between Drugs and Nondrugs
Sadowski, J., & Kubinyi, H. (1998) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm9706776 · Cited by 392
Cited by
Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.
Huang, N., Shoichet, B. K., & Irwin, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0608356 · Cited by 1,318
Chong, C. R., & Sullivan, D. J. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/448645a · Cited by 983
Shangary, S., & Wang, S. (2009) · Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.48.113006.094723 · Cited by 623
Self-citationExploring Chemical Space for Drug Discovery Using the Chemical Universe Database
Reymond, J.-L., & Awale, M. (2012) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/cn3000422 · Cited by 326
eToxPred: a machine learning-based approach to estimate the toxicity of drug candidates
Pu, L., Naderi, M., Liu, T., Wu, H.-C., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Brylinski, M. (2019) · BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1186/s40360-018-0282-6 · Cited by 212
“Re-moving the redundancy at a Tanimoto coefficient (TC) [48] of 0.8 with the SUBSET [49] program resulted in 1008 NuBBE and 81,372 UNPD molecules.”
MethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Voigt, J. H., Bienfait, B., Wang, S., & Nicklaus, M. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2001-05-01
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 702-712
- ISSN
- 0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003932708
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.