Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Using Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints with Laplacian-Modified Bayesian Analysis in High-Throughput Screening Follow-Up

Open access
Rogers, David, Brown, Robert D., Hahn, Mathew·2005·SLAS Discovery

Abstract

This article describes the use of a combination of extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFPs) and Laplacian-modified Bayesian analysis in a study of the inhibition of Escherichia coli dihydrofolate reductase. The McMaster High-Throughput Screening Lab at McMaster University proposed a competition to predict the hits in a separate test set of 50,000 compounds. Although the problem seemed best approached with 3D methods, the authors show that 2D methods offer surprisingly competitive results with a low computational cost.

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 · 10.1177/1087057105281365

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rogers, D., Brown, R. D., & Hahn, M.
Venue
SLAS Discovery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-10
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
682-686
ISSN
2472-5552 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142602210
Cited by
296
References
0
FWCI
10.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.