CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

The Trouble with QSAR (or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Embrace Fallacy) Export

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, Vol. 48, No. 1. (1 January 2008), pp. 25-26.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


alexhakkinen's tags for this article

qsar sar

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

PMID: 18161959 A general feeling of disillusionment with QSAR has settled across the modeling community in recent years. Most practitioners seem to agree that QSAR has not fulfilled the expectations set for its ability to predict biological activity. Among the possible reasons that have been proposed recently for this disappointment are chance correlation, rough response surfaces, incorrect functional forms, and overtraining. Undoubtedly, each of these plays an important role in the lack of predictivity seen in most QSAR models. Likely to be just as important is the role of the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc in the poor prediction seen with many QSAR models. By embracing fallacy along with an over reliance on statistical inference, it may well be that the manner in which QSAR is practiced is more responsible for its lack of success than any other innate cause.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.