Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27859414›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational chemistry2017

Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest.

Cheng Wang, Yingkai Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational chemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Persistent Local Laplacian Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Calculating Enzyme Inhibition with Random Forests.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  9. Hands-On Docking with Molegro Virtual Docker.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Extremely Randomized Trees to Determine Binding Affinity.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 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

2 authors.

Cheng WangDepartment of Chemistry, New York University, New York, New York, 10003.
Yingkai ZhangDepartment of Chemistry, New York University, New York, New York, 10003.

Funding

Computational Studies of Histone ModificationsR01GM079223 · NIGMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI ZHANG, YINGKAI · 2007 to 2016
$2.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM079223
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of new protein-ligand scoring functions using machine learning algorithms, such as random forest, has been of significant interest. By efficiently utilizing expanded feature sets and a large set of experimental data, random forest based scoring functions (RFbScore) can achieve better correlations to experimental protein-ligand binding data with known crystal structures; however, more extensive tests indicate that such enhancement in scoring power comes with significant under-performance in docking and screening power tests compared to traditional scoring functions. In this work, to improve scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand docking functions simultaneously, we have introduced a Δ

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationAlgorithmsLigandsProteinsLigandsProteinsdockingmachine learningprotein-ligand binding affinityrandom forestscoring function

Identifiers

PMID27859414
PMCPMC5140681

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.