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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Alternative global goodness metrics and sensitivity analysis: heuristics to check the robustness of conclusions from studies comparing virtual screening methods.
    Author: Sheridan RP.
    Journal: J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb; 48(2):426-33. PubMed ID: 18247505.
    Abstract:
    We introduce two ways of testing the robustness of conclusions from studies comparing virtual screening methods: alternative "global goodness" metrics and sensitivity analysis. While the robustness tests cannot eliminate all biases in virtual screening comparisons, they are useful as a "reality check" for any given study. To illustrate this, we apply them to a set of enrichments published in McGaughey et al. (J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1504-1519) where 11 target protein/ligand combinations are tested on 2D and 3D similarity methods, plus docking. The major conclusions in that paper, for instance, that ligand-based methods are better than docking methods, hold up. However, some minor conclusions, such as Glide being the best docking method, do not.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]