Cargando…

How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps

The recent literature is replete with papers evaluating computational tools (often those operating on 3D structures) for their performance in a certain set of tasks. Most commonly these papers compare a number of docking tools for their performance in cognate re-docking (pose prediction) and/or virt...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hawkins, Paul C. D., Warren, Gregory L., Skillman, A. Geoffrey, Nicholls, Anthony
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18217218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9166-3
_version_ 1782151784113897472
author Hawkins, Paul C. D.
Warren, Gregory L.
Skillman, A. Geoffrey
Nicholls, Anthony
author_facet Hawkins, Paul C. D.
Warren, Gregory L.
Skillman, A. Geoffrey
Nicholls, Anthony
author_sort Hawkins, Paul C. D.
collection PubMed
description The recent literature is replete with papers evaluating computational tools (often those operating on 3D structures) for their performance in a certain set of tasks. Most commonly these papers compare a number of docking tools for their performance in cognate re-docking (pose prediction) and/or virtual screening. Related papers have been published on ligand-based tools: pose prediction by conformer generators and virtual screening using a variety of ligand-based approaches. The reliability of these comparisons is critically affected by a number of factors usually ignored by the authors, including bias in the datasets used in virtual screening, the metrics used to assess performance in virtual screening and pose prediction and errors in crystal structures used.
format Text
id pubmed-2270916
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-22709162008-03-21 How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps Hawkins, Paul C. D. Warren, Gregory L. Skillman, A. Geoffrey Nicholls, Anthony J Comput Aided Mol Des Article The recent literature is replete with papers evaluating computational tools (often those operating on 3D structures) for their performance in a certain set of tasks. Most commonly these papers compare a number of docking tools for their performance in cognate re-docking (pose prediction) and/or virtual screening. Related papers have been published on ligand-based tools: pose prediction by conformer generators and virtual screening using a variety of ligand-based approaches. The reliability of these comparisons is critically affected by a number of factors usually ignored by the authors, including bias in the datasets used in virtual screening, the metrics used to assess performance in virtual screening and pose prediction and errors in crystal structures used. Springer Netherlands 2008-01-23 2008-03 /pmc/articles/PMC2270916/ /pubmed/18217218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9166-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2008
spellingShingle Article
Hawkins, Paul C. D.
Warren, Gregory L.
Skillman, A. Geoffrey
Nicholls, Anthony
How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps
title How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps
title_full How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps
title_fullStr How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps
title_full_unstemmed How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps
title_short How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps
title_sort how to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18217218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9166-3
work_keys_str_mv AT hawkinspaulcd howtodoanevaluationpitfallsandtraps
AT warrengregoryl howtodoanevaluationpitfallsandtraps
AT skillmanageoffrey howtodoanevaluationpitfallsandtraps
AT nichollsanthony howtodoanevaluationpitfallsandtraps