ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2022
Consensus scoring evaluated using the GPCR-Bench dataset: Reconsidering the role of MM/GBSA.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A head-to-head comparison of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in predicting binding affinities for the CBJournal of molecular modeling · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The recent availability of large numbers of GPCR crystal structures has provided an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate their performance in virtual screening protocols using established benchmarking datasets. In this study, we evaluated the ability of MM/GBSA in consensus scoring-based virtual screening enrichment together with nine classical scoring functions, using the GPCR-Bench dataset consisting of 24 GPCR crystal structures and 254,646 actives and decoys. While the performance of consensus scoring was modest overall, combinations which included MM/GBSA performed relatively well compared to combinations of classical scoring functions. Combinations of MM/GBSA and good-performing scoring functions provided the highest proportion of improvements, with improvements observed in 32% and 19% of all combinations across all targets at the EF
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.