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
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.
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
Cramer, R. D., Patterson, D. E., & Bunce, J. D. (1988) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00226a005 · Cited by 3,931
Cited by
Blair, R. M. (2000) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/54.1.138 · Cited by 806
Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: Perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology
Perkins, R., Fang, H., Tong, W., & Welsh, W. J. (2003) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1897/01-171 · Cited by 286
Self-citationComparative QSAR Analysis of Estrogen Receptor Ligands
Gao, H., Katzenellenbogen, J. A., Garg, R., & Hansch, C. (1999) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr980018g · Cited by 260
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
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- 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.