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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An effective docking strategy for virtual screening based on multi-objective optimization algorithm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-10-58 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Honglin Li, Hailei Zhang, Mingyue Zheng, Jie Luo, Ling Kang, Xiaofeng Liu, Xicheng Wang, Hualiang Jiang |
| Abstract |
Development of a fast and accurate scoring function in virtual screening remains a hot issue in current computer-aided drug research. Different scoring functions focus on diverse aspects of ligand binding, and no single scoring can satisfy the peculiarities of each target system. Therefore, the idea of a consensus score strategy was put forward. Integrating several scoring functions, consensus score re-assesses the docked conformations using a primary scoring function. However, it is not really robust and efficient from the perspective of optimization. Furthermore, to date, the majority of available methods are still based on single objective optimization design. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| China | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 64 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 28% |
| Researcher | 18 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 18% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 June 2021.
All research outputs
#14,203,791
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,722
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,100
of 171,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#38
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 171,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.