Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15602552›Full record

ReviewNature2004

Virtual screening of chemical libraries.

Brian K Shoichet

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 486 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
486citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

486 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. DOCKweb: a web-based GUI platform for molecular modeling with DOCK6.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. FungalInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

426 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Brian K ShoichetDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, 600 16th Street, San Francisco, California 94143-2240, USA. shoichet@cgl.ucsf.edu

Funding

DESIGN AND EXPERIMENTAL TESTING OF NEW DOCKING METHODSR01GM059957 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SHOICHET, BRIAN K · 1999 to 2017
$4.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM059957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual screening uses computer-based methods to discover new ligands on the basis of biological structures. Although widely heralded in the 1970s and 1980s, the technique has since struggled to meet its initial promise, and drug discovery remains dominated by empirical screening. Recent successes in predicting new ligands and their receptor-bound structures, and better rates of ligand discovery compared to empirical screening, have re-ignited interest in virtual screening, which is now widely used in drug discovery, albeit on a more limited scale than empirical screening.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalLigandsModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationPharmaceutical PreparationsLigandsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID15602552
PMCPMC1360234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.