ArticleBiomedicines2023
On Approximating the
Article in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and in silico evaluation of natural compounds from Annona muricata (soursop) leaves for colon cancer treatment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Explainable AI-driven prediction of APE1 inhibitors: enhancing cancer therapy with machine learning models and feature importance analysis.Molecular diversity · 2025Article
- Data-Driven Modelling of Substituted Pyrimidine and Uracil-Based Derivatives Validated with Newly Synthesized and Antiproliferative Evaluated Compounds.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Analysis of continuous enzyme kinetic data using ICEKAT.Methods in enzymology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the case of pandemics such as COVID-19, the rapid development of medicines addressing the symptoms is necessary to alleviate the pressure on the medical system. One of the key steps in medicine evaluation is the determination of pIC50 factor, which is a negative logarithmic expression of the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50). Determining this value can be a lengthy and complicated process. A tool allowing for a quick approximation of pIC50 based on the molecular makeup of medicine could be valuable. In this paper, the creation of the artificial intelligence (AI)-based model is performed using a publicly available dataset of molecules and their pIC50 values. The modeling algorithms used are artificial and convolutional neural networks (ANN and CNN). Three approaches are tested-modeling using just molecular properties (MP), encoded SMILES representation of the molecule, and the combination of both input types. Models are evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R2) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in a five-fold cross-validation scheme to assure the validity of the results. The obtained models show that the highest quality regression (R2¯=0.99, σR2¯=0.001; MAPE¯=0.009%, σMAPE¯=0.009), by a large margin, is obtained when using a hybrid neural network trained with both MP and SMILES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.