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 *

202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29809005)

  • 41. Combinatorial QSAR modeling of specificity and subtype selectivity of ligands binding to serotonin receptors 5HT1E and 5HT1F.
    Wang XS; Tang H; Golbraikh A; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):997-1013. PubMed ID: 18470978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. First report of q-RASAR modeling toward an approach of easy interpretability and efficient transferability.
    Banerjee A; Roy K
    Mol Divers; 2022 Oct; 26(5):2847-2862. PubMed ID: 35767129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Simplified molecular input line entry system-based optimal descriptors: quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling mutagenicity of nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
    Toropov AA; Toropova AP; Benfenati E
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2009 May; 73(5):515-25. PubMed ID: 19370812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Essential and desirable characteristics of ecotoxicity quantitative structure-activity relationships.
    Schultz TW; Cronin MT
    Environ Toxicol Chem; 2003 Mar; 22(3):599-607. PubMed ID: 12627648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Comparison of MLR, PLS and GA-MLR in QSAR analysis.
    Saxena AK; Prathipati P
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003; 14(5-6):433-45. PubMed ID: 14758986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Molecular Similarity in Computational Toxicology.
    Floris M; Olla S
    Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1800():171-179. PubMed ID: 29934892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Does rational selection of training and test sets improve the outcome of QSAR modeling?
    Martin TM; Harten P; Young DM; Muratov EN; Golbraikh A; Zhu H; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Oct; 52(10):2570-8. PubMed ID: 23030316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Why QSAR fails: an empirical evaluation using conventional computational approach.
    Huang J; Fan X
    Mol Pharm; 2011 Apr; 8(2):600-8. PubMed ID: 21370915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Electron-correlation based externally predictive QSARs for mutagenicity of nitrated-PAHs in Salmonella typhimurium TA100.
    Reenu ; Vikas
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2014 Mar; 101():42-50. PubMed ID: 24507125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. [Quantitative structure-activity relationship model for prediction of cardiotoxicity of chemical components in traditional Chinese medicines].
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2017 Jun; 49(3):551-556. PubMed ID: 28628163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Beware of External Validation! - A Comparative Study of Several Validation Techniques used in QSAR Modelling.
    Majumdar S; Basak SC
    Curr Comput Aided Drug Des; 2018; 14(4):284-291. PubMed ID: 29701159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Application of predictive QSAR models to database mining: identification and experimental validation of novel anticonvulsant compounds.
    Shen M; Béguin C; Golbraikh A; Stables JP; Kohn H; Tropsha A
    J Med Chem; 2004 Apr; 47(9):2356-64. PubMed ID: 15084134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Consensus QSAR modeling of toxicity of pharmaceuticals to different aquatic organisms: Ranking and prioritization of the DrugBank database compounds.
    Khan K; Benfenati E; Roy K
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2019 Jan; 168():287-297. PubMed ID: 30390527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. QSAR Modeling Based on Conformation Ensembles Using a Multi-Instance Learning Approach.
    Zankov DV; Matveieva M; Nikonenko AV; Nugmanov RI; Baskin II; Varnek A; Polishchuk P; Madzhidov TI
    J Chem Inf Model; 2021 Oct; 61(10):4913-4923. PubMed ID: 34554736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Genetic algorithms and self-organizing maps: a powerful combination for modeling complex QSAR and QSPR problems.
    Bayram E; Santago P; Harris R; Xiao YD; Clauset AJ; Schmitt JD
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2004; 18(7-9):483-93. PubMed ID: 15729848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. A Toxicity Prediction Tool for Potential Agonist/Antagonist Activities in Molecular Initiating Events Based on Chemical Structures.
    Kurosaki K; Wu R; Uesawa Y
    Int J Mol Sci; 2020 Oct; 21(21):. PubMed ID: 33113912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. An alternative QSAR-based approach for predicting the bioconcentration factor for regulatory purposes.
    Gissi A; Gadaleta D; Floris M; Olla S; Carotti A; Novellino E; Benfenati E; Nicolotti O
    ALTEX; 2014; 31(1):23-36. PubMed ID: 24247988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. In Silico Prediction of Chemically Induced Mutagenicity: How to Use QSAR Models and Interpret Their Results.
    Mombelli E; Raitano G; Benfenati E
    Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():87-105. PubMed ID: 27311463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Data-based review of QSARs for predicting genotoxicity: the state of the art.
    Benigni R; Bossa C
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 30260416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. New Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models Improve Predictability of Ames Mutagenicity for Aromatic Azo Compounds.
    Manganelli S; Benfenati E; Manganaro A; Kulkarni S; Barton-Maclaren TS; Honma M
    Toxicol Sci; 2016 Oct; 153(2):316-26. PubMed ID: 27413112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.