These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27476456)

  • 1. A Kernel-Based Method for Assessing Uncertainty on Individual QSAR Predictions.
    Tebby C; Mombelli E
    Mol Inform; 2012 Oct; 31(10):741-51. PubMed ID: 27476456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Applicability Domain Dependent Predictive Uncertainty in QSAR Regressions.
    Sahlin U; Jeliazkova N; Öberg T
    Mol Inform; 2014 Jan; 33(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 27485196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Risk Assessment Perspective of Current Practice in Characterizing Uncertainties in QSAR Regression Predictions.
    Sahlin U; Filipsson M; Öberg T
    Mol Inform; 2011 Jun; 30(6-7):551-64. PubMed ID: 27467156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Uncertainty in QSAR predictions.
    Sahlin U
    Altern Lab Anim; 2013 Mar; 41(1):111-25. PubMed ID: 23614548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Kernel-based partial least squares: application to fingerprint-based QSAR with model visualization.
    An Y; Sherman W; Dixon SL
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Sep; 53(9):2312-21. PubMed ID: 23901898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. General Approach to Estimate Error Bars for Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Predictions of Molecular Activity.
    Liu R; Glover KP; Feasel MG; Wallqvist A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Aug; 58(8):1561-1575. PubMed ID: 29949366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Relative Importance of Domain Applicability Metrics for Estimating Prediction Errors in QSAR Varies with Training Set Diversity.
    Sheridan RP
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jun; 55(6):1098-107. PubMed ID: 25998559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The importance of outlier detection and training set selection for reliable environmental QSAR predictions.
    Furusjö E; Svenson A; Rahmberg M; Andersson M
    Chemosphere; 2006 Mar; 63(1):99-108. PubMed ID: 16153688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Modelling Structure Activity Landscapes with Cliffs: a Kernel Regression-Based Approach.
    Tebby C; Mombelli E
    Mol Inform; 2013 Jul; 32(7):609-23. PubMed ID: 27481769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. DPRESS: Localizing estimates of predictive uncertainty.
    Clark RD
    J Cheminform; 2009 Jul; 1(1):11. PubMed ID: 20298517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Classification of biodegradable materials using QSAR modelling with uncertainty estimation.
    Rocha WFC; Sheen DA
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2016 Oct; 27(10):799-811. PubMed ID: 27710037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing the reliability of a QSAR model's predictions.
    He L; Jurs PC
    J Mol Graph Model; 2005 Jun; 23(6):503-23. PubMed ID: 15896992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Critical assessment of QSAR models of environmental toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: focusing on applicability domain and overfitting by variable selection.
    Tetko IV; Sushko I; Pandey AK; Zhu H; Tropsha A; Papa E; Oberg T; Todeschini R; Fourches D; Varnek A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Sep; 48(9):1733-46. PubMed ID: 18729318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Visual Interpretation of Kernel-Based Prediction Models.
    Hansen K; Baehrens D; Schroeter T; Rupp M; Müller KR
    Mol Inform; 2011 Sep; 30(9):817-26. PubMed ID: 27467414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessment of machine learning reliability methods for quantifying the applicability domain of QSAR regression models.
    Toplak M; Močnik R; Polajnar M; Bosnić Z; Carlsson L; Hasselgren C; Demšar J; Boyer S; Zupan B; Stålring J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Feb; 54(2):431-41. PubMed ID: 24490838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Kinase-kernel models: accurate in silico screening of 4 million compounds across the entire human kinome.
    Martin E; Mukherjee P
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Jan; 52(1):156-70. PubMed ID: 22133092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. QSAR--how good is it in practice? Comparison of descriptor sets on an unbiased cross section of corporate data sets.
    Gedeck P; Rohde B; Bartels C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(5):1924-36. PubMed ID: 16995723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How Precise Are Our Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Derived Predictions for New Query Chemicals?
    Roy K; Ambure P; Kar S
    ACS Omega; 2018 Sep; 3(9):11392-11406. PubMed ID: 31459245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Iterative fragment selection: a group contribution approach to predicting fish biotransformation half-lives.
    Brown TN; Arnot JA; Wania F
    Environ Sci Technol; 2012 Aug; 46(15):8253-60. PubMed ID: 22779755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Estimation of the applicability domain of kernel-based machine learning models for virtual screening.
    Fechner N; Jahn A; Hinselmann G; Zell A
    J Cheminform; 2010 Mar; 2(1):2. PubMed ID: 20222949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.