Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25285160›Full record

ArticleWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science2014

Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics.

John B O Mitchell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing 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

119 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Active Learning for Generalizable Detonation Performance Prediction of Energetic Materials.Chemistry of materials : a publication of the American Chemical Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Uncertainty Quantification forChemical reviews · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 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.

John B O MitchellSchool of Chemistry, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/I00596X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning algorithms are generally developed in computer science or adjacent disciplines and find their way into chemical modeling by a process of diffusion. Though particular machine learning methods are popular in chemoinformatics and quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR), many others exist in the technical literature. This discussion is methods-based and focused on some algorithms that chemoinformatics researchers frequently use. It makes no claim to be exhaustive. We concentrate on methods for supervised learning, predicting the unknown property values of a test set of instances, usually molecules, based on the known values for a training set. Particularly relevant approaches include Artificial Neural Networks, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbors and naïve Bayes classifiers.

Identifiers

PMID25285160
PMCPMC4180928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.