↓ Skip to main content

If we designed airplanes like we design drugs…

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 949)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
citeulike
9 CiteULike
Title
If we designed airplanes like we design drugs…
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10822-011-9490-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Walter S. Woltosz

Abstract

In the early days, airplanes were put together with parts designed for other purposes (bicycles, farm equipment, textiles, automotive equipment, etc.). They were then flown by their brave designers to see if the design would work--often with disastrous results. Today, airplanes, helicopters, missiles, and rockets are designed in computers in a process that involves iterating through enormous numbers of designs before anything is made. Until very recently, novel drug-like molecules were nearly always made first like early airplanes, then tested to see if they were any good (although usually not on the brave scientists who created them!). The resulting extremely high failure rate is legendary. This article describes some of the evolution of computer-based design in the aerospace industry and compares it with the progress made to date in computer-aided drug design. Software development for pharmaceutical research has been largely entrepreneurial, with only relatively limited support from government and industry end-user organizations. The pharmaceutical industry is still about 30 years behind aerospace and other industries in fully recognizing the value of simulation and modeling and funding the development of the tools needed to catch up.

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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Germany 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
India 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 111 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 47 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 21%
Student > Master 13 10%
Other 9 7%
Professor 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 48 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 15%
Computer Science 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 20 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 07 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,016,334
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#6
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,826
of 247,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 99% 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 247,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 95% of its contemporaries.