Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23534394

RESUMO

Using a dataset with more than 6000 compounds, the performance of eight quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) models was evaluated: ACD/Tox Suite, Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Elimination, and Toxicity of chemical substances (ADMET) predictor, Derek, Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), TOxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology (TOPKAT), Toxtree, CEASAR, and SARpy (SAR in python). In general, the results showed a high level of performance. To have a realistic estimate of the predictive ability, the results for chemicals inside and outside the training set for each model were considered. The effect of applicability domain tools (when available) on the prediction accuracy was also evaluated. The predictive tools included QSAR models, knowledge-based systems, and a combination of both methods. Models based on statistical QSAR methods gave better results.


Assuntos
Simulação por Computador , Substâncias Perigosas/toxicidade , Modelos Químicos , Mutagênicos/química , Mutagênicos/toxicidade , Mutagênese , Testes de Mutagenicidade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Relação Quantitativa Estrutura-Atividade , Software
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA