Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships

787 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 2015, received 787 indexed citations. Written by Junshui Ma, Robert P. Sheridan, Andy Liaw, George E. Dahl and Vladimir Svetnik covering the research area of Molecular Biology, Materials Chemistry and Computational Theory and Mathematics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Computational Theory and Mathematics (498 citations), Molecular Biology (387 citations) and Materials Chemistry (295 citations). Published in Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling.

Countries where authors are citing Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Deep Neural Nets as a Method for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1021/ci500747n.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026