Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 202

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

Evaluation of Quantitative Structure−Activity Relationship Methods for Large-Scale Prediction of Chemicals Binding to the Estrogen Receptor

Tong, Weida, Lowis, David R., Perkins, Roger, Chen, Yu, Welsh, William J., Goddette, Dean W., Heritage, Trevor W., Sheehan, Daniel M.·1998·Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Abstract

Three different QSAR methods, Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA), classical QSAR (utilizing the CODESSA program), and Hologram QSAR (HQSAR), are compared in terms of their potential for screening large data sets of chemicals as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). While CoMFA and CODESSA (Comprehensive Descriptors for Structural and Statistical Analysis) have been commercially available for some time, HQSAR is a novel QSAR technique. HQSAR attempts to correlate molecular structure with biological activity for a series of compounds using molecular holograms constructed from counts of sub-structural molecular fragments. In addition to using r2 and q2 (cross-validated r2) in assessing the statistical quality of QSAR models, another statistical parameter was defined to be the ratio of the standard error to the activity range. The statistical quality of the QSAR models constructed using CoMFA and HQSAR techniques were comparable and were generally better than those produced with CODESSA. It is notable that only 2D-connectivity, bond and elemental atom-type information were considered in building HQSAR models. Since HQSAR requires no conformational analysis or structural alignment, it is straightforward to use and lends itself readily to the rapid screening of large numbers of compounds. Among the QSAR methods considered, HQSAR appears to offer many attractive features, such as speed, reproducibility and ease of use, which portend its utility for prioritizing large numbers of potential EDCs for subsequent toxicological testing and risk assessment.

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/ci980008g

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 202

Metadata

Authors
Tong, W., Lowis, D. R., Perkins, R., Chen, Y., Welsh, W. J., Goddette, D. W., Heritage, T. W., & Sheehan, D. M.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
Published
1998-05-20
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
669-677
ISSN
  • 0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5142
OpenAlex
W2072088140
Cited by
202
References
1
FWCI
14.06
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: Evaluation of Quantitative Structure−Activity Relationship Methods for Large-Scale Prediction of Chemicals Binding to the Estrogen Receptor. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci980008g
The paper
Tong, W., Lowis, D. R., Perkins, R., Chen, Y., Welsh, W. J., Goddette, D. W., Heritage, T. W., & Sheehan, D. M. (1998). Evaluation of Quantitative Structure−Activity Relationship Methods for Large-Scale Prediction of Chemicals Binding to the Estrogen Receptor. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci980008g

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.