Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33392949›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2021

Comparing predictive ability of QSAR/QSPR models using 2D and 3D molecular representations.

Akinori Sato, Tomoyuki Miyao, Swarit Jasial, Kimito Funatsu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Conformer-covariance diagnostics for aqueous solubility.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. SynergisticiScience · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mayer-Homology Learning Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities.Journal of computational biophysics and chemistry · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Akinori SatoGraduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, Nara, 630-0192, Japan.
Tomoyuki MiyaoGraduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, Nara, 630-0192, Japan.
Swarit JasialGraduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, Nara, 630-0192, Japan.
Kimito FunatsuData Science Center, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, Nara, 630-0192, Japan. funatsu@chemys.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-9368-0302

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) and quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models predict biological activity and molecular property based on the numerical relationship between chemical structures and activity (property) values. Molecular representations are of importance in QSAR/QSPR analysis. Topological information of molecular structures is usually utilized (2D representations) for this purpose. However, conformational information seems important because molecules are in the three-dimensional space. As a three-dimensional molecular representation applicable to diverse compounds, similarity between a test molecule and a set of reference molecules has been previously proposed. This 3D representation was found to be effective on virtual screening for early enrichment of active compounds. In this study, we introduced the 3D representation into QSAR/QSPR modeling (regression tasks). Furthermore, we investigated relative merits of 3D representations over 2D in terms of the diversity of training data sets. For the prediction task of quantum mechanics-based properties, the 3D representations were superior to 2D. For predicting activity of small molecules against specific biological targets, no consistent trend was observed in the difference of performance using the two types of representations, irrespective of the diversity of training data sets.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalMachine LearningModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationOrganic ChemicalsQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipRegression AnalysisOrganic ChemicalsMolecular representationsPredictability of modelsQuantitative structure–activity relationshipQuantitative structure–property relationship

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.