A guide to drug discovery: Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening
By K. Bleicher, Hans-Joachim Böhm, Klaus Müller, A. Alanine. 2003
696 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Molecular Biology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Computational Chemistry & Drug Discovery
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Molecular Biology
- Sepp Hochreiter
- Günter Klambauer
- Michihiro Kuramochi
- Christopher M. Dobson
- Laura M. Geffert
- C. K. Surratt
- Jeffry D. Madura
- Kristina Preuer
In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
In Computational Chemistry & Drug Discovery
- Günter Klambauer
- Laura M. Geffert
- C. K. Surratt
- Jeffry D. Madura
- Kristina Preuer
- Sepp Hochreiter
- George Karypis
- Kalyan Immadisetty
Citations in the corpus
- New design strategies for antidepressant drugs (2013, methodology): “Disadvantages of the method include low ‘hit’ rate (sometimes precisely because of the increased diversity), complexity of structures, the presence of structurally impure compounds, occasional lack of drug-like features in a compound and limited options for chemical modification [71-73].”
- Frequent substructure-based approaches for classifying chemical compounds (2003, background): “properties, and geometric descriptors tend to outperform their topological counterparts [7], [12], [75].”
- DeepSynergy: predicting anti-cancer drug synergy with Deep Learning (2017, background): “A large number of measurements can be produced in reasonable time at low costs (Bajorath, 2002; Bleicher et al. , 2003; White, 2000).”