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
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.
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
An automated PLS search for biologically relevant QSAR descriptors
Olah, M., Bologa, C., & Oprea, T. I. (2004) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-004-4060-8 · Cited by 91
Cited by
QSAR Modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to?
Cherkasov, A., Muratov, E. N., Fourches, D., Varnek, A., Baskin, I. I., Cronin, M., Dearden, J., Gramatica, P., Martin, Y. C., Todeschini, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm4004285 · Cited by 2,164
REINVENT 2.0: An AI Tool for De Novo Drug Design
Blaschke, T., Arús-Pous, J., Chen, H., Margreitter, C., Tyrchan, C., Engkvist, O., Papadopoulos, K., & Patronov, A. (2020) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00915 · Cited by 496
How not to develop a quantitative structure–activity or structure–property relationship (QSAR/QSPR)
Dearden, J. C., Cronin, M. T. D., & Kaiser, K. L. E. (2009) · SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research · doi:10.1080/10629360902949567 · Cited by 468
van Westen, G. J. P., Wegner, J. K., IJzerman, A. P., van Vlijmen, H. W. T., & Bender, A. (2011) · MedChemComm · doi:10.1039/c0md00165a · Cited by 176
Effectiveness of molecular fingerprints for exploring the chemical space of natural products
Boldini, D., Ballabio, D., Consonni, V., Todeschini, R., Grisoni, F., & Sieber, S. A. (2024) · Journal of Cheminformatics · doi:10.1186/s13321-024-00830-3 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Gedeck, P., Rohde, B., & Bartels, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- 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
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.