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 *

298 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28440302)

  • 1. Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening.
    Wójcikowski M; Ballester PJ; Siedlecki P
    Sci Rep; 2017 Apr; 7():46710. PubMed ID: 28440302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Virtual screening approach to identifying influenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors using molecular docking combined with machine-learning-based scoring function.
    Zhang L; Ai HX; Li SM; Qi MY; Zhao J; Zhao Q; Liu HS
    Oncotarget; 2017 Oct; 8(47):83142-83154. PubMed ID: 29137330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Correcting the impact of docking pose generation error on binding affinity prediction.
    Li H; Leung KS; Wong MH; Ballester PJ
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Sep; 17(Suppl 11):308. PubMed ID: 28185549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Machine learning in computational docking.
    Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
    Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction.
    Li H; Peng J; Leung Y; Leung KS; Wong MH; Lu G; Ballester PJ
    Biomolecules; 2018 Mar; 8(1):. PubMed ID: 29538331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. PharmRF: A machine-learning scoring function to identify the best protein-ligand complexes for structure-based pharmacophore screening with high enrichments.
    Kumar SP; Dixit NY; Patel CN; Rawal RM; Pandya HA
    J Comput Chem; 2022 May; 43(12):847-863. PubMed ID: 35301752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. SCORCH: Improving structure-based virtual screening with machine learning classifiers, data augmentation, and uncertainty estimation.
    McGibbon M; Money-Kyrle S; Blay V; Houston DR
    J Adv Res; 2023 Apr; 46():135-147. PubMed ID: 35901959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Learning from the ligand: using ligand-based features to improve binding affinity prediction.
    Boyles F; Deane CM; Morris GM
    Bioinformatics; 2020 Feb; 36(3):758-764. PubMed ID: 31598630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Hybrid Docking and Machine Learning Approach to Enhance the Performance of Virtual Screening Carried out on Protein-Protein Interfaces.
    Singh N; Villoutreix BO
    Int J Mol Sci; 2022 Nov; 23(22):. PubMed ID: 36430841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Classical scoring functions for docking are unable to exploit large volumes of structural and interaction data.
    Li H; Peng J; Sidorov P; Leung Y; Leung KS; Wong MH; Lu G; Ballester PJ
    Bioinformatics; 2019 Oct; 35(20):3989-3995. PubMed ID: 30873528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Learning from Docked Ligands: Ligand-Based Features Rescue Structure-Based Scoring Functions When Trained on Docked Poses.
    Boyles F; Deane CM; Morris GM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Nov; 62(22):5329-5341. PubMed ID: 34469150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Improved method of structure-based virtual screening based on ensemble learning.
    Li J; Liu W; Song Y; Xia J
    RSC Adv; 2020 Feb; 10(13):7609-7618. PubMed ID: 35492172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Substituting random forest for multiple linear regression improves binding affinity prediction of scoring functions: Cyscore as a case study.
    Li H; Leung KS; Wong MH; Ballester PJ
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2014 Aug; 15(1):291. PubMed ID: 25159129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Task-Specific Scoring Functions for Predicting Ligand Binding Poses and Affinity and for Screening Enrichment.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Jan; 58(1):119-133. PubMed ID: 29190087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Learning protein-ligand binding affinity with atomic environment vectors.
    Meli R; Anighoro A; Bodkin MJ; Morris GM; Biggin PC
    J Cheminform; 2021 Aug; 13(1):59. PubMed ID: 34391475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improving classical scoring functions using random forest: The non-additivity of free energy terms' contributions in binding.
    Afifi K; Al-Sadek AF
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2018 Aug; 92(2):1429-1434. PubMed ID: 29655201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Application of Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Binding Affinity for Drug Targets: A Study of Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 2.
    Bitencourt-Ferreira G; Duarte da Silva A; Filgueira de Azevedo W
    Curr Med Chem; 2021; 28(2):253-265. PubMed ID: 31729287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving AutoDock Vina Using Random Forest: The Growing Accuracy of Binding Affinity Prediction by the Effective Exploitation of Larger Data Sets.
    Li H; Leung KS; Wong MH; Ballester PJ
    Mol Inform; 2015 Feb; 34(2-3):115-26. PubMed ID: 27490034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Structural and Sequence Similarity Makes a Significant Impact on Machine-Learning-Based Scoring Functions for Protein-Ligand Interactions.
    Li Y; Yang J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2017 Apr; 57(4):1007-1012. PubMed ID: 28358210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Development of a machine-learning model to predict Gibbs free energy of binding for protein-ligand complexes.
    Bitencourt-Ferreira G; de Azevedo WF
    Biophys Chem; 2018 Sep; 240():63-69. PubMed ID: 29906639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.