↓ Skip to main content

Pose prediction and virtual screening performance of GOLD scoring functions in a standardized test

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
linkedin
1 LinkedIn user

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Pose prediction and virtual screening performance of GOLD scoring functions in a standardized test
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10822-012-9551-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

John W. Liebeschuetz, Jason C. Cole, Oliver Korb

Abstract

The performance of all four GOLD scoring functions has been evaluated for pose prediction and virtual screening under the standardized conditions of the comparative docking and scoring experiment reported in this Edition. Excellent pose prediction and good virtual screening performance was demonstrated using unmodified protein models and default parameter settings. The best performing scoring function for both pose prediction and virtual screening was demonstrated to be the recently introduced scoring function ChemPLP. We conclude that existing docking programs already perform close to optimally in the cognate pose prediction experiments currently carried out and that more stringent pose prediction tests should be used in the future. These should employ cross-docking sets. Evaluation of virtual screening performance remains problematic and much remains to be done to improve the usefulness of publically available active and decoy sets for virtual screening. Finally we suggest that, for certain target/scoring function combinations, good enrichment may sometimes be a consequence of 2D property recognition rather than a modelling of the correct 3D interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Romania 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 161 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 22%
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 33 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 53 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 8%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 40 24%
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 07 September 2012.
All research outputs
#15,149,769
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#680
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,613
of 168,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 168,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.