↓ Skip to main content

Confidence limits, error bars and method comparison in molecular modeling. Part 2: comparing methods

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, March 2016
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 (#23 of 949)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Confidence limits, error bars and method comparison in molecular modeling. Part 2: comparing methods
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10822-016-9904-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Nicholls

Abstract

The calculation of error bars for quantities of interest in computational chemistry comes in two forms: (1) Determining the confidence of a prediction, for instance of the property of a molecule; (2) Assessing uncertainty in measuring the difference between properties, for instance between performance metrics of two or more computational approaches. While a former paper in this series concentrated on the first of these, this second paper focuses on comparison, i.e. how do we calculate differences in methods in an accurate and statistically valid manner. Described within are classical statistical approaches for comparing widely used metrics such as enrichment, area under the curve and Pearson's product-moment coefficient, as well as generic measures. These are considered of over single and multiple sets of data and for two or more methods that evince either independent or correlated behavior. General issues concerning significance testing and confidence limits from a Bayesian perspective are discussed, along with size-of-effect aspects of evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 96 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Master 5 5%
Professor 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 36 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Computer Science 6 6%
Chemical Engineering 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 27 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,702,950
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#23
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,495
of 313,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 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 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 313,641 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them