↓ Skip to main content

A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10822-016-9960-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jocelyn Sunseri, Matthew Ragoza, Jasmine Collins, David Ryan Koes

Abstract

We assess the performance of several machine learning-based scoring methods at protein-ligand pose prediction, virtual screening, and binding affinity prediction. The methods and the manner in which they were trained make them sufficiently diverse to evaluate the utility of various strategies for training set curation and binding pose generation, but they share a novel approach to classification in the context of protein-ligand scoring. Rather than explicitly using structural data such as affinity values or information extracted from crystal binding poses for training, we instead exploit the abundance of data available from high-throughput screening to approach the problem as one of discriminating binders from non-binders. We evaluate the performance of our various scoring methods in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge and find that although the merits of some features of our approach remain inconclusive, our scoring methods performed comparably to a state-of-the-art scoring function that was fit to binding affinity data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 8 16%
Computer Science 8 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,593,798
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#668
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,508
of 347,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#24
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.