↓ Skip to main content

Deep Learning for Drug Design: an Artificial Intelligence Paradigm for Drug Discovery in the Big Data Era

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 1,295)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
patent
3 patents
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
253 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
506 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Deep Learning for Drug Design: an Artificial Intelligence Paradigm for Drug Discovery in the Big Data Era
Published in
The AAPS Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1208/s12248-018-0210-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yankang Jing, Yuemin Bian, Ziheng Hu, Lirong Wang, Xiang-Qun Sean Xie

Abstract

Over the last decade, deep learning (DL) methods have been extremely successful and widely used to develop artificial intelligence (AI) in almost every domain, especially after it achieved its proud record on computational Go. Compared to traditional machine learning (ML) algorithms, DL methods still have a long way to go to achieve recognition in small molecular drug discovery and development. And there is still lots of work to do for the popularization and application of DL for research purpose, e.g., for small molecule drug research and development. In this review, we mainly discussed several most powerful and mainstream architectures, including the convolutional neural network (CNN), recurrent neural network (RNN), and deep auto-encoder networks (DAENs), for supervised learning and nonsupervised learning; summarized most of the representative applications in small molecule drug design; and briefly introduced how DL methods were used in those applications. The discussion for the pros and cons of DL methods as well as the main challenges we need to tackle were also emphasized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 506 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 506 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 14%
Student > Master 72 14%
Student > Bachelor 47 9%
Researcher 46 9%
Other 19 4%
Other 74 15%
Unknown 176 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 63 12%
Chemistry 61 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 46 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 8%
Engineering 25 5%
Other 82 16%
Unknown 189 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 02 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,418,036
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#29
of 1,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,705
of 329,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 329,368 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.