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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37572302)

  • 1. Protein-ligand binding affinity prediction exploiting sequence constituent homology.
    Abdel-Rehim A; Orhobor O; Hang L; Ni H; King RD
    Bioinformatics; 2023 Aug; 39(8):. PubMed ID: 37572302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. GB-score: Minimally designed machine learning scoring function based on distance-weighted interatomic contact features.
    Rayka M; Firouzi R
    Mol Inform; 2023 Mar; 42(3):e2200135. PubMed ID: 36722733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An ensemble-based approach to estimate confidence of predicted protein-ligand binding affinity values.
    Rayka M; Mirzaei M; Mohammad Latifi A
    Mol Inform; 2024 Apr; 43(4):e202300292. PubMed ID: 38358080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Machine-learning scoring functions trained on complexes dissimilar to the test set already outperform classical counterparts on a blind benchmark.
    Li H; Lu G; Sze KH; Su X; Chan WY; Leung KS
    Brief Bioinform; 2021 Nov; 22(6):. PubMed ID: 34169324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Incorporating Explicit Water Molecules and Ligand Conformation Stability in Machine-Learning Scoring Functions.
    Lu J; Hou X; Wang C; Zhang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Nov; 59(11):4540-4549. PubMed ID: 31638801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. ET-score: Improving Protein-ligand Binding Affinity Prediction Based on Distance-weighted Interatomic Contact Features Using Extremely Randomized Trees Algorithm.
    Rayka M; Karimi-Jafari MH; Firouzi R
    Mol Inform; 2021 Aug; 40(8):e2060084. PubMed ID: 34021703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest.
    Wang C; Zhang Y
    J Comput Chem; 2017 Jan; 38(3):169-177. PubMed ID: 27859414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A Small Step Toward Generalizability: Training a Machine Learning Scoring Function for Structure-Based Virtual Screening.
    Scantlebury J; Vost L; Carbery A; Hadfield TE; Turnbull OM; Brown N; Chenthamarakshan V; Das P; Grosjean H; von Delft F; Deane CM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2023 May; 63(10):2960-2974. PubMed ID: 37166179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Persistent spectral hypergraph based machine learning (PSH-ML) for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.
    Liu X; Feng H; Wu J; Xia K
    Brief Bioinform; 2021 Sep; 22(5):. PubMed ID: 33837771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. PLANET: A Multi-objective Graph Neural Network Model for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction.
    Zhang X; Gao H; Wang H; Chen Z; Zhang Z; Chen X; Li Y; Qi Y; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2024 Apr; 64(7):2205-2220. PubMed ID: 37319418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.