↓ Skip to main content

Decoys Selection in Benchmarking Datasets: Overview and Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2018
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
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
Decoys Selection in Benchmarking Datasets: Overview and Perspectives
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manon Réau, Florent Langenfeld, Jean-François Zagury, Nathalie Lagarde, Matthieu Montes

Abstract

Virtual Screening (VS) is designed to prospectively help identifying potential hits, i.e., compounds capable of interacting with a given target and potentially modulate its activity, out of large compound collections. Among the variety of methodologies, it is crucial to select the protocol that is the most adapted to the query/target system under study and that yields the most reliable output. To this aim, the performance of VS methods is commonly evaluated and compared by computing their ability to retrieve active compounds in benchmarking datasets. The benchmarking datasets contain a subset of known active compounds together with a subset of decoys, i.e., assumed non-active molecules. The composition of both the active and the decoy compounds subsets is critical to limit the biases in the evaluation of the VS methods. In this review, we focus on the selection of decoy compounds that has considerably changed over the years, from randomly selected compounds to highly customized or experimentally validated negative compounds. We first outline the evolution of decoys selection in benchmarking databases as well as current benchmarking databases that tend to minimize the introduction of biases, and secondly, we propose recommendations for the selection and the design of benchmarking datasets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 177 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Student > Master 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Professor 8 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 50 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 32 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 15%
Computer Science 15 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 59 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,859,267
of 26,171,302 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#2,355
of 20,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,962
of 455,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#46
of 292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,171,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 455,203 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 292 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.