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 accessAbstract
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.
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
HANSCH, C., MALONEY, P. P., FUJITA, T., & MUIR, R. M. (1962) · Nature · doi:10.1038/194178b0 · Cited by 1,056
Debnath, A. K., Lopez de Compadre, R. L., Debnath, G., Shusterman, A. J., & Hansch, C. (1991) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm00106a046 · Cited by 868
Cited by
Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist
King, R. D., Whelan, K. E., Jones, F. M., Reiser, P. G. K., Bryant, C. H., Muggleton, S. H., Kell, D. B., & Oliver, S. G. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02236 · Cited by 662
Self-citationZheng, W., & Tropsha, A. (2000) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci980033m · Cited by 450
Frequent substructure-based approaches for classifying chemical compounds
Deshpande, M., Kuramochi, M., Wale, N., & Karypis, G. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2005.127 · Cited by 371
Discovery of frequent DATALOG patterns
Dehaspe, L., & Toivonen, H. (1999) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1023/a:1009863704807 · Cited by 313
Pharmacophore Discovery Using the Inductive Logic Programming System PROGOL
Finn, P., Muggleton, S., Page, D., & Srinivasan, A. (1998) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007460424845 · Cited by 138
Self-citation
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.