ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Pairwise Performance Comparison of Docking Scoring Functions: Computational Approach Using InterCriteria Analysis.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of Novel Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease fromACS omega · 2026Article
- An integrative bioinformatics framework for functional annotation and prioritization of hypothetical proteins in Bacillus thuringiensis relevant to biological pest control.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026Article
- Computational QSAR and structure-based identification of plerixafor-derived PIM-1 kinase inhibitors in diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Article
- Review
- Network Pharmacology, Molecular Docking and Molecular Dynamics Studies to Predict the Molecular Targets and Mechanisms of Action ofPlants (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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scoring functions are key elements in docking protocols as they approximate the binding affinity of a ligand (usually a small bioactive molecule) by calculating its interaction energy with a biomacromolecule (usually a protein). In this study, we present a pairwise comparison of scoring functions applying a multi-criterion decision-making approach based on InterCriteria analysis (ICrA). As criteria, the five scoring functions implemented in MOE (Molecular Operating Environment) software were selected, and their performance on a set of protein-ligand complexes from the PDBbind database was compared. The following docking outputs were used: the best docking score, the lowest root mean square deviation (RMSD) between the predicted poses and the co-crystallized ligand, the RMSD between the best docking score pose and the co-crystallized ligand, and the docking score of the pose with the lowest RMSD to the co-crystallized ligand. The impact of ICrA thresholds on the relations between the scoring functions was investigated. A correlation analysis was also performed and juxtaposed with the ICrA. Our results reveal the lowest RMSD as the best-performing docking output and two scoring functions (Alpha HB and London dG) as having the highest comparability. The proposed approach can be applied to any other scoring functions and protein-ligand complexes of interest.
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.