Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33430992›Full record

ReviewJournal of cheminformatics2020

Towards reproducible computational drug discovery.

Nalini Schaduangrat, Samuel Lampa, Saw Simeon, Matthew Paul Gleeson, Ola Spjuth, Chanin Nantasenamat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cheminformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

12 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

6 authors.

Nalini SchaduangratCenter of Data Mining and Biomedical Informatics, Faculty of Medical Technology, Mahidol University, 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Samuel LampaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Saw SimeonInterdisciplinary Graduate Program in Bioscience, Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University, 10900, Bangkok, Thailand.
Matthew Paul GleesonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, 10520, Bangkok, Thailand. paul.gl@kmitl.ac.th.
Ola SpjuthDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden. ola.spjuth@farmbio.uu.se.
Chanin NantasenamatCenter of Data Mining and Biomedical Informatics, Faculty of Medical Technology, Mahidol University, 10700, Bangkok, Thailand. chanin.nan@mahidol.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-663X

Funding

Thailand Research Fund RSA6280075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reproducibility of experiments has been a long standing impediment for further scientific progress. Computational methods have been instrumental in drug discovery efforts owing to its multifaceted utilization for data collection, pre-processing, analysis and inference. This article provides an in-depth coverage on the reproducibility of computational drug discovery. This review explores the following topics: (1) the current state-of-the-art on reproducible research, (2) research documentation (e.g. electronic laboratory notebook, Jupyter notebook, etc.), (3) science of reproducible research (i.e. comparison and contrast with related concepts as replicability, reusability and reliability), (4) model development in computational drug discovery, (5) computational issues on model development and deployment, (6) use case scenarios for streamlining the computational drug discovery protocol. In computational disciplines, it has become common practice to share data and programming codes used for numerical calculations as to not only facilitate reproducibility, but also to foster collaborations (i.e. to drive the project further by introducing new ideas, growing the data, augmenting the code, etc.). It is therefore inevitable that the field of computational drug design would adopt an open approach towards the collection, curation and sharing of data/code.

Indexed as

BioinformaticsCheminformaticsData scienceData sharingDrug designDrug discoveryOpen dataOpen scienceReproducibilityReproducible research

Identifiers

PMID33430992
PMCPMC6988305

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.