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 *

251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29517771)

  • 1. Assessing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions with the CASF-2013 benchmark.
    Li Y; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Liu J; Han L; Wang R
    Nat Protoc; 2018 Apr; 13(4):666-680. PubMed ID: 29517771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein-Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions.
    Liu Z; Su M; Han L; Liu J; Yang Q; Li Y; Wang R
    Acc Chem Res; 2017 Feb; 50(2):302-309. PubMed ID: 28182403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update.
    Su M; Yang Q; Du Y; Feng G; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Feb; 59(2):895-913. PubMed ID: 30481020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
    Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Development of a new benchmark for assessing the scoring functions applicable to protein-protein interactions.
    Han L; Yang Q; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
    Future Med Chem; 2018 Jul; 10(13):1555-1574. PubMed ID: 29953245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set.
    Li Y; Liu Z; Li J; Han L; Liu J; Zhao Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1700-16. PubMed ID: 24716849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of AutoDock and AutoDock Vina on the CASF-2013 Benchmark.
    Gaillard T
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Aug; 58(8):1697-1706. PubMed ID: 29989806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.
    Cheng T; Li X; Li Y; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):1079-93. PubMed ID: 19358517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Incorporating specificity into optimization: evaluation of SPA using CSAR 2014 and CASF 2013 benchmarks.
    Yan Z; Wang J
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Mar; 30(3):219-27. PubMed ID: 26879323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing multiple score functions in Rosetta for drug discovery.
    Smith ST; Meiler J
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(10):e0240450. PubMed ID: 33044994
    [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. Enhance the performance of current scoring functions with the aid of 3D protein-ligand interaction fingerprints.
    Liu J; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Li Y; Wang R
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jul; 18(1):343. PubMed ID: 28720122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Lin_F9: A Linear Empirical Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Docking.
    Yang C; Zhang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2021 Sep; 61(9):4630-4644. PubMed ID: 34469692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Tapping on the Black Box: How Is the Scoring Power of a Machine-Learning Scoring Function Dependent on the Training Set?
    Su M; Feng G; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Mar; 60(3):1122-1136. PubMed ID: 32085675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions by Considering Binding Affinity Information.
    Zhao X; Li H; Zhang K; Huang SY
    J Phys Chem B; 2023 Oct; 127(42):9021-9034. PubMed ID: 37822259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Delta Machine Learning to Improve Scoring-Ranking-Screening Performances of Protein-Ligand Scoring Functions.
    Yang C; Zhang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Jun; 62(11):2696-2712. PubMed ID: 35579568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Development and evaluation of a deep learning model for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.
    Stepniewska-Dziubinska MM; Zielenkiewicz P; Siedlecki P
    Bioinformatics; 2018 Nov; 34(21):3666-3674. PubMed ID: 29757353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. AGL-Score: Algebraic Graph Learning Score for Protein-Ligand Binding Scoring, Ranking, Docking, and Screening.
    Nguyen DD; Wei GW
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Jul; 59(7):3291-3304. PubMed ID: 31257871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.