Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27280890›Full record

ReviewJournal of chemical information and modeling2016

Trust, but Verify II: A Practical Guide to Chemogenomics Data Curation.

Denis Fourches, Eugene Muratov, Alexander Tropsha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. ChemLint: Conversational Cheminformatics with Large Language Models.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Multiscale-Aware Graph Embedding Approach Uncovers LC-61, a Potent Anti-Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  12. Multimodal Cross-Attentive Graph-Based Framework for Predicting In Vivo Endocrine Disruptors.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

74 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

3 authors.

Denis FourchesDepartment of Chemistry, Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University , Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United States.
Eugene MuratovLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, Division of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.
Alexander TropshaLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, Division of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.

Funding

PREDICTIVE QSAR MODELINGR01GM066940 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI TROPSHA, ALEXANDER · 2003 to 2011
$3.0M
Chembench: the Integrated Web Portal to Accelerate Cheminformatics and Chemical GR01GM096967 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI POZEFSKY, DIANE, TROPSHA, ALEXANDER · 2012 to 2015
$1.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM066940NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM096967
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing public concern about the lack of reproducibility of experimental data published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Herein, we review the most recent alerts regarding experimental data quality and discuss initiatives taken thus far to address this problem, especially in the area of chemical genomics. Going beyond just acknowledging the issue, we propose a chemical and biological data curation workflow that relies on existing cheminformatics approaches to flag, and when appropriate, correct possibly erroneous entries in large chemogenomics data sets. We posit that the adherence to the best practices for data curation is important for both experimental scientists who generate primary data and deposit them in chemical genomics databases and computational researchers who rely on these data for model development.

Indexed as

GenomicsConsensusQuality ControlQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipReproducibility of ResultsStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27280890
PMCPMC5657146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.