1,721,082 research outputs found

    QSAR Models for Toxicity of Organic Substances to Daphnia magna Built up by Using the CORAL Freeware

    No full text
    CORAL (CORrelations And Logic, ) is a freeware available on the Internet. This freeware is designed to build up quantitative structure property/activity relationships. The molecular structure for CORAL should be represented by the simplified molecular input line entry system (SMILES). Optimal descriptors calculated with SMILES are a mathematical function of the presence or absence of SMILES elements. The essence of this approach is the calculation of correlation weights for each element or combination of the elements by the Monte Carlo method. These coefficients serve to calculate the descriptors correlated with the endpoint for the training set, hoping that this correlation will also hold for the external test set. These descriptors can be improved by taking into account global physicochemical situations in molecules. An example of the physicochemical situation is the presence of oxygen and nitrogen. One can calculate these situations with SMILES and represent them by combining 0 (absence) and 1 (presence). The involving in the modelling of correlation weights of aforementioned physicochemical situations gave improvement in accuracy of models of toxicity to Daphnia magna for test set: ntest = 75, r2 = 0.7322, r2pred = 0.7193, r2m = 0.6549 (without correlation weights of the physicochemical situations); and ntest = 75, r2 = 0.7897, r2pred = 0.7790, r2m = 0.6850 (with aforementioned correlation weights of physicochemical situations)

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore