| Title |
Bigger data, collaborative tools and the future of predictive drug discovery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10822-014-9762-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sean Ekins, Alex M. Clark, S. Joshua Swamidass, Nadia Litterman, Antony J. Williams |
| Abstract |
Over the past decade we have seen a growth in the provision of chemistry data and cheminformatics tools as either free websites or software as a service commercial offerings. These have transformed how we find molecule-related data and use such tools in our research. There have also been efforts to improve collaboration between researchers either openly or through secure transactions using commercial tools. A major challenge in the future will be how such databases and software approaches handle larger amounts of data as it accumulates from high throughput screening and enables the user to draw insights, enable predictions and move projects forward. We now discuss how information from some drug discovery datasets can be made more accessible and how privacy of data should not overwhelm the desire to share it at an appropriate time with collaborators. We also discuss additional software tools that could be made available and provide our thoughts on the future of predictive drug discovery in this age of big data. We use some examples from our own research on neglected diseases, collaborations, mobile apps and algorithm development to illustrate these ideas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 43% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Brazil | 4 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 17% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 20 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 18 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Engineering | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 23% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,794,265
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#78
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,354
of 242,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 242,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.