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 *

1044 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29190087)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Boosted neural networks scoring functions for accurate ligand docking and ranking.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2018 Apr; 16(2):1850004. PubMed ID: 29495922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. BgN-Score and BsN-Score: bagging and boosting based ensemble neural networks scoring functions for accurate binding affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):S8. PubMed ID: 25734685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A Comparative Assessment of Predictive Accuracies of Conventional and Machine Learning Scoring Functions for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2015; 12(2):335-47. PubMed ID: 26357221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S3. PubMed ID: 25916860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparative assessment of ranking accuracies of conventional and machine-learning-based scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2012; 9(5):1301-13. PubMed ID: 22411892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?
    Zhenin M; Bahia MS; Marcou G; Varnek A; Senderowitz H; Horvath D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
    Gabel J; Desaphy J; Rognan D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
    Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
    Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA.
    Greenidge PA; Kramer C; Mozziconacci JC; Sherman W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2697-717. PubMed ID: 25266271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Machine learning on ligand-residue interaction profiles to significantly improve binding affinity prediction.
    Ji B; He X; Zhai J; Zhang Y; Man VH; Wang J
    Brief Bioinform; 2021 Sep; 22(5):. PubMed ID: 33758923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improving structure-based virtual screening performance via learning from scoring function components.
    Xiong GL; Ye WL; Shen C; Lu AP; Hou TJ; Cao DS
    Brief Bioinform; 2021 May; 22(3):. PubMed ID: 32496540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Convolutional neural network scoring and minimization in the D3R 2017 community challenge.
    Sunseri J; King JE; Francoeur PG; Koes DR
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2019 Jan; 33(1):19-34. PubMed ID: 29992528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring.
    Sunseri J; Ragoza M; Collins J; Koes DR
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):761-771. PubMed ID: 27592011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 53.