Table 5 |
|||||||||
|
Ranks and distance values for the case shown in Figure 5 where SIMCOMP outperforms both 3DZD and USR. |
|||||||||
|
3DZD |
USR-k |
USR |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Correlation |
Euclidean |
Manhattan |
Manhattan |
Manhattan |
|||||
|
Rank |
Value |
Rank |
Value |
Rank |
Value |
Rank |
Value |
Rank |
Value |
|
1 |
0.9947 |
1 |
1.2152 |
1 |
0.8419 |
1 |
0.6752 |
1 |
0.6865 |
|
2 |
0.9918 |
2 |
1.2690 |
2 |
0.8376 |
2 |
0.6621 |
2 |
0.6732 |
|
3 |
0.9913 |
3 |
1.2969 |
3 |
0.8373 |
3 |
0.6620 |
3 |
0.6632 |
|
4 |
0.9825 |
196 |
1.9634 |
73 |
0.7844 |
227 |
0.5226 |
238 |
0.5281 |
|
5 |
0.9792 |
344 |
2.1038 |
245 |
0.7574 |
243 |
0.5208 |
397 |
0.5041 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
The top 3 structures retrieved are inactives with actives found much later shown in the fourth and the fifth rows. |
|||||||||
|
Venkatraman et al. Journal of Cheminformatics 2009 1:19 doi:10.1186/1758-2946-1-19 |
|||||||||