Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

QSAR − How Good Is It in Practice? Comparison of Descriptor Sets on an Unbiased Cross Section of Corporate Data Sets

Gedeck, Peter, Rohde, Bernhard, Bartels, Christian·2006·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract

The quality of QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships) predictions depends on a large number of factors including the descriptor set, the statistical method, and the data sets used. Here we study the quality of QSAR predictions mainly as a function of the data set and descriptor type using partial least squares as the statistical modeling method. The study makes use of the fact that we have access to a large number of data sets and to a variety of different QSAR descriptors. The main conclusions are that the quality of the predictions depends both on the data set and the descriptor used. The quality of the predictions correlates positively with the size of the data set and the range of biological activities. There is no clear dependence of the quality of the predictions on the complexity of the data set. All of the descriptors tested produced useful predictions for some of the data sets. None of the descriptors is best for all data sets; it is therefore necessary to test in each individual case, which descriptor produces the best model. In our tests, 2D fragment based descriptors usually performed better than simpler descriptors based on augmented atom types. Possible reasons for these observations are discussed.

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 · 10.1021/ci050413p

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 218

Metadata

Authors
Gedeck, P., Rohde, B., & Bartels, C.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2006-08-03
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
1924-1936
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W2064440950
Cited by
218
References
1
FWCI
5.47
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: QSAR − How Good Is It in Practice? Comparison of Descriptor Sets on an Unbiased Cross Section of Corporate Data Sets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci050413p
The paper
Gedeck, P., Rohde, B., & Bartels, C. (2006). QSAR − How Good Is It in Practice? Comparison of Descriptor Sets on an Unbiased Cross Section of Corporate Data Sets. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci050413p

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.