Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: the use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming.

Open access
King, R D, Muggleton, S H, Srinivasan, A, Sternberg, M J·1996·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We present a general approach to forming structure-activity relationships (SARs). This approach is based on representing chemical structure by atoms and their bond connectivities in combination with the inductive logic programming (ILP) algorithm PROGOL. Existing SAR methods describe chemical structure by using attributes which are general properties of an object. It is not possible to map chemical structure directly to attribute-based descriptions, as such descriptions have no internal organization. A more natural and general way to describe chemical structure is to use a relational description, where the internal construction of the description maps that of the object described. Our atom and bond connectivities representation is a relational description. ILP algorithms can form SARs with relational descriptions. We have tested the relational approach by investigating the SARs of 230 aromatic and heteroaromatic nitro compounds. These compounds had been split previously into two subsets, 188 compounds that were amenable to regression and 42 that were not. For the 188 compounds, a SAR was found that was as accurate as the best statistical or neural network-generated SARs. The PROGOL SAR has the advantages that it did not need the use of any indicator variables handcrafted by an expert, and the generated rules were easily comprehensible. For the 42 compounds, PROGOL formed a SAR that was significantly (P < 0.025) more accurate than linear regression, quadratic regression, and back-propagation. This SAR is based on an automatically generated structural alert for mutagenicity.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.93.1.438

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
King, R. D., Muggleton, S. H., Srinivasan, A., & Sternberg, M. J.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1996-01-09
Volume
93
Issue
1
Pages
438-442
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2018590585
Cited by
231
References
2
FWCI
17.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: the use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.93.1.438
The paper
King, R. D., Muggleton, S. H., Srinivasan, A., & Sternberg, M. J. (1996). Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: the use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.1.438

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.