ReviewFuture medicinal chemistry2024
A critical assessment of bioactive compounds databases.
Review in Future medicinal chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Target-driven machine learning-enabled virtual screening (TAME-VS) enables prioritization of AKR1C3 inhibitors.Communications chemistry · 2026Article
- BEDB: a comprehensive binding energy database for molecular docking and dynamics: insights into Human Metapneumovirus (HMPV) Inhibitors.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026Article
- Bioactive Profiling ofThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2026Article
- Network pharmacology refined with non-ubiquity and decoy-controlled molecular docking reveals insights intoFrontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Potential role of different animal models for the evaluation of bioactive compounds.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Recovery of Natural Pyrazines and Alcohols from Fusel Oils Using an Innovative Extraction Installation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Compound databases (DBs) are essential tools for drug discovery. The number of DBs in public domain is increasing, so it is important to analyze these DBs. In this article, the main characteristics of 64 DBs will be presented. The methodological strategy used was a literature search. To analyze the characteristics obtained in the review, the DBs were categorized into two subsections: Open Access and Commercial DBs. Open access includes generalist DBs (containing compounds of diverse origins), DBs with specific applicability, DBs exclusive to natural products and those containing compounds with specific pharmacological action. The literature review showed that there are challenges to making these repositories available, such as standardizing information curation practices and funding to maintain and sustain them.
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.