220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32352294)
1. Improving Docking-Based Virtual Screening Ability by Integrating Multiple Energy Auxiliary Terms from Molecular Docking Scoring.
Ye WL; Shen C; Xiong GL; Ding JJ; Lu AP; Hou TJ; Cao DS
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Sep; 60(9):4216-4230. PubMed ID: 32352294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Accuracy or novelty: what can we gain from target-specific machine-learning-based scoring functions in virtual screening?
Shen C; Weng G; Zhang X; Leung EL; Yao X; Pang J; Chai X; Li D; Wang E; Cao D; Hou T
Brief Bioinform; 2021 Sep; 22(5):. PubMed ID: 33418562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Improved Method of Structure-Based Virtual Screening via Interaction-Energy-Based Learning.
Yasuo N; Sekijima M
J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Mar; 59(3):1050-1061. PubMed ID: 30808172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
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. The impact of compound library size on the performance of scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening.
Fresnais L; Ballester PJ
Brief Bioinform; 2021 May; 22(3):. PubMed ID: 32568385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Can machine learning consistently improve the scoring power of classical scoring functions? Insights into the role of machine learning in scoring functions.
Shen C; Hu Y; Wang Z; Zhang X; Zhong H; Wang G; Yao X; Xu L; Cao D; Hou T
Brief Bioinform; 2021 Jan; 22(1):497-514. PubMed ID: 31982914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Improving protein-ligand docking and screening accuracies by incorporating a scoring function correction term.
Zheng L; Meng J; Jiang K; Lan H; Wang Z; Lin M; Li W; Guo H; Wei Y; Mu Y
Brief Bioinform; 2022 May; 23(3):. PubMed ID: 35289359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Machine Learning Consensus Scoring Improves Performance Across Targets in Structure-Based Virtual Screening.
Ericksen SS; Wu H; Zhang H; Michael LA; Newton MA; Hoffmann FM; Wildman SA
J Chem Inf Model; 2017 Jul; 57(7):1579-1590. PubMed ID: 28654262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. TB-IECS: an accurate machine learning-based scoring function for virtual screening.
Zhang X; Shen C; Jiang D; Zhang J; Ye Q; Xu L; Hou T; Pan P; Kang Y
J Cheminform; 2023 Jul; 15(1):63. PubMed ID: 37403155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reducing false positive rate of docking-based virtual screening by active learning.
Wang L; Shi SH; Li H; Zeng XX; Liu SY; Liu ZQ; Deng YF; Lu AP; Hou TJ; Cao DS
Brief Bioinform; 2023 Jan; 24(1):. PubMed ID: 36642412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Ligity: A Non-Superpositional, Knowledge-Based Approach to Virtual Screening.
Ebejer JP; Finn PW; Wong WK; Deane CM; Morris GM
J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Jun; 59(6):2600-2616. PubMed ID: 31117509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
