Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The developability of heteroaromatic and heteroaliphatic rings – do some have a better pedigree as potential drug molecules than others?

Ritchie, Timothy J., Macdonald, Simon J. F., Peace, Simon, Pickett, Stephen D., Luscombe, Christopher N.·2012·MedChemComm

Abstract

Aqueous solubility, protein binding and CYP450 inhibition data for compounds containing a variety of heteroaromatic and heteroaliphatic rings were analysed and compared to determine which ring types fared best and worst in these developability screens. The results suggest that certain heterorings are generally more developable than others: how this information may be used and some caveats to be borne in mind 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 · 10.1039/c2md20111a

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 183

Metadata

Authors
Ritchie, T. J., Macdonald, S. J. F., Peace, S., Pickett, S. D., & Luscombe, C. N.
Venue
MedChemComm
Published
2012
Volume
3
Issue
9
Pages
1062
ISSN
  • 2040-2503 (ISSN-L)
  • 2040-2511
OpenAlex
W2165158819
Cited by
183
References
3
FWCI
13.58
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.