ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2016
Adapting Document Similarity Measures for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Virtual screening: hope, hype, and the fine line in between.Expert opinion on drug discovery · 2025Review
- CAT-DTI: cross-attention and Transformer network with domain adaptation for drug-target interaction prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Hybrid-Enhanced Siamese Similarity Models in Ligand-Based Virtual Screen.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Feature Reduction for Molecular Similarity Searching Based on Autoencoder Deep Learning.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Improved Deep Learning Based Method for Molecular Similarity Searching Using Stack of Deep Belief Networks.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Quantum probability ranking principle for ligand-based virtual screening.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying the similarity of molecules is considered one of the major tasks in virtual screening. There are many similarity measures that have been proposed for this purpose, some of which have been derived from document and text retrieving areas as most often these similarity methods give good results in document retrieval and can achieve good results in virtual screening. In this work, we propose a similarity measure for ligand-based virtual screening, which has been derived from a text processing similarity measure. It has been adopted to be suitable for virtual screening; we called this proposed measure the Adapted Similarity Measure of Text Processing (ASMTP). For evaluating and testing the proposed ASMTP we conducted several experiments on two different benchmark datasets: the Maximum Unbiased Validation (MUV) and the MDL Drug Data Report (MDDR). The experiments have been conducted by choosing 10 reference structures from each class randomly as queries and evaluate them in the recall of cut-offs at 1% and 5%. The overall obtained results are compared with some similarity methods including the Tanimoto coefficient, which are considered to be the conventional and standard similarity coefficients for fingerprint-based similarity calculations. The achieved results show that the performance of ligand-based virtual screening is better and outperforms the Tanimoto coefficients and other methods.
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.