Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: Perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology

Perkins, Roger, Fang, Hong, Tong, Weida, Welsh, William J.·2003·Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract

Quantitative structure—activity relationships (QSARs) attempt to correlate chemical structure with activity using statistical approaches. The QSAR models are useful for various purposes including the prediction of activities of untested chemicals. Quantitative structure—activity relationships and other related approaches have attracted broad scientific interest, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry for drug discovery and in toxicology and environmental science for risk assessment. An assortment of new QSAR methods have been developed during the past decade, most of them focused on drug discovery. Besides advancing our fundamental knowledge of QSARs, these scientific efforts have stimulated their application in a wider range of disciplines, such as toxicology, where QSARs have not yet gained full appreciation. In this review, we attempt to summarize the status of QSAR with emphasis on illuminating the utility and limitations of QSAR technology. We will first review two-dimensional (2D) QSAR with a discussion of the availability and appropriate selection of molecular descriptors. We will then proceed to describe three-dimensional (3D) QSAR and key issues associated with this technology, then compare the relative suitability of 2D and 3D QSAR for different applications. Given the recent technological advances in biological research for rapid identification of drug targets, we mention several examples in which QSAR approaches are employed in conjunction with improved knowledge of the structure and function of the target receptor. The review will conclude by discussing statistical validation of QSAR models, a topic that has received sparse attention in recent years despite its critical importance.

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 · 10.1897/01-171

Cites

95 of 95 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 95 references

Cited by

See all 286

Metadata

Authors
Perkins, R., Fang, H., Tong, W., & Welsh, W. J.
Venue
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Published
2003-08-01
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
1666-1679
ISSN
  • 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8618
OpenAlex
W2149775989
Cited by
286
References
95
FWCI
8.38
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: Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: Perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1897/01-171
The paper
Perkins, R., Fang, H., Tong, W., & Welsh, W. J. (2003). Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: Perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1897/01-171

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.