ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2012
Does your model weigh the same as a duck?
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- From UK-2A to florylpicoxamid: Active learning to identify a mimic of a macrocyclic natural product.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2024Article
- The Lateral Metalation of Isoxazolo[3,4-Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Can Machine Learning Predict the Phase Behavior of Surfactants?The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2023Article
- Virtual screening web servers: designing chemical probes and drug candidates in the cyberspace.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Review
- 10-N-heterocylic aryl-isoxazole-amides (AIMs) have robust anti-tumor activity against breast and brain cancer cell lines and useful fluorescence properties.Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry · 2020Article
- Article
- Quantitative surface field analysis: learning causal models to predict ligand binding affinity and pose.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018Article
- Extrapolative prediction using physically-based QSAR.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2016Article
- Knowledge-guided docking: accurate prospective prediction of bound configurations of novel ligands using Surflex-Dock.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2015Article
- Prediction of off-target drug effects through data fusion.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2014Article
- A structure-guided approach for protein pocket modeling and affinity prediction.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2013Article
- On exploring structure-activity relationships.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2013Review
- Iterative refinement of a binding pocket model: active computational steering of lead optimization.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computer-aided drug design is a mature field by some measures, and it has produced notable successes that underpin the study of interactions between small molecules and living systems. However, unlike a truly mature field, fallacies of logic lie at the heart of the arguments in support of major lines of research on methodology and validation thereof. Two particularly pernicious ones are cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) and confirmation bias (seeking evidence that is confirmatory of the hypothesis at hand). These fallacies will be discussed in the context of off-target predictive modeling, QSAR, molecular similarity computations, and docking. Examples will be shown that avoid these problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.