↓ Skip to main content

Substituting random forest for multiple linear regression improves binding affinity prediction of scoring functions: Cyscore as a case study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Substituting random forest for multiple linear regression improves binding affinity prediction of scoring functions: Cyscore as a case study
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-291
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongjian Li, Kwong-Sak Leung, Man-Hon Wong, Pedro J Ballester

Abstract

State-of-the-art protein-ligand docking methods are generally limited by the traditionally low accuracy of their scoring functions, which are used to predict binding affinity and thus vital for discriminating between active and inactive compounds. Despite intensive research over the years, classical scoring functions have reached a plateau in their predictive performance. These assume a predetermined additive functional form for some sophisticated numerical features, and use standard multivariate linear regression (MLR) on experimental data to derive the coefficients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 96 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 18 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 16%
Computer Science 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 25 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,836,497
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,804
of 7,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,092
of 238,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#29
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.