Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27110288›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2016

Improving chemical similarity ensemble approach in target prediction.

Zhonghua Wang, Lu Liang, Zheng Yin, Jianping Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Phytochemical Characterization ofFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 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

4 authors.

Zhonghua WangState Key Laboratory of Medicinal Chemical Biology and College of Pharmacy, Nankai University, Weijin Road, Tianjin, China.
Lu LiangState Key Laboratory of Medicinal Chemical Biology and College of Pharmacy, Nankai University, Weijin Road, Tianjin, China ; High-Throughput Molecular Drug Discovery Center, Tianjin Joint Academy of Biomedicine and Technology, Tianjin, China.
Zheng YinState Key Laboratory of Medicinal Chemical Biology and College of Pharmacy, Nankai University, Weijin Road, Tianjin, China.
Jianping LinState Key Laboratory of Medicinal Chemical Biology and College of Pharmacy, Nankai University, Weijin Road, Tianjin, China ; High-Throughput Molecular Drug Discovery Center, Tianjin Joint Academy of Biomedicine and Technology, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn silico target prediction of compounds plays an important role in drug discovery. The chemical similarity ensemble approach (SEA) is a promising method, which has been successfully applied in many drug-related studies. There are various models available analogous to SEA, because this approach is based on different types of molecular fingerprints. To investigate the influence of training data selection and the complementarity of different models, several SEA models were constructed and tested.

resultsWhen we used a test set of 37,138 positive and 42,928 negative ligand-target interactions, among the five tested molecular fingerprint methods, at significance level 0.05, Topological-based model yielded the best precision rate (83.7 %) and [Formula: see text] (0.784) while Atom pair-based model yielded the best [Formula: see text] (0.694). By employing an election system to combine the five models, a flexible prediction scheme was achieved with precision range from 71 to 90.6 %, [Formula: see text] range from 0.663 to 0.684 and [Formula: see text] range from 0.696 to 0.817.

conclusionsThe overall effectiveness of all of the five models could be ranked in decreasing order as follows: Atom pair [Formula: see text] Topological > Morgan > MACCS > Pharmacophore. Combining multiple SEA models, which takes advantages of different models, could be used to improve the success rates of the models. Another possibility of improving the model could be using target-specific classes or more active compounds.

Indexed as

FingerprintOff-target effectSimilarityTarget identification

Identifiers

PMID27110288
PMCPMC4842302

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.