Talk:Quantitative structure–activity relationship

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article class rating

Article may soon merit a B-class rating. Fuzzform 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I read this and do not know more about QSAR than beforehand.

You should try to state, in one sentence using no technical terms whatsoever, what QSAR actually is, for people who are clueless about chemistry (like me). My layman's impression after wading through this impenetrable mess of an article is something like: "In chemistry, it is generally the case that similar compounds have similar effects. QSAR is an attempt to quantify this relationship." Is that right?

Also, what it is is always more important that how it is pronounced and what some letters might otherwise mean. The order of statements in the opening paragraph should reflect this. Komet 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's not so clear. I've reworked the introductory paragraph. What do you think? ~K 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction graf 2 mentions "physicochemical properties" (physical chemical properties) while the function defined at the end of the introduction mentions "physiochemical properties" (physiological chemical properties). Is this distinction intentional or is there a typo, and if there is a typo which was correct? Loresayer (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

physicochemical ≡ physical chemical while physiochemical ≠ physiological chemical. Boghog (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and what are "physiochemical properties" supposed to be? --Diogenes2000 (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Physiochemical properties = relating to both physical and chemical properties. Examples include molecular weight, polar surface area, and partition coefficient. Boghog (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice and name dropping SPAM?

  • I would like to remove the text and all those copy right notices from Wikipedia of the q-pharm company. I see this rather as link SPAM than real added value. IMHO this is a kind of copyright notice SPAM and text SPAM for creating a new term 'post-QSAR'. Until this question is solved I will remove the text from the main page and enter it here.
  • And, this company or at least some people related to it, have added external link SPAM to e.g. the Cheminformatics page, and I do not like this.
  • Beside of this, the content of the text and its added value is really questionable. We do not need this text, there are tons of free text pieces for QSAR available. I really do not see any need to use their misleading and non-general text, which is a wild mix of terms and not really categorized. JKW 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And dear contributers, please create a Wikipedia account.
And dear Wikipedia administrators, if you have a look at the history, I am wondering, if we should track some IP adresses, since there have been already several tries for adding link SPAM, e.g. 83.237.205.133, 83.237.126.150, 83.237.205.143
JKW 16:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. ~K 17:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following the WP:NV-rule their text was deleted. Thank's to User:Jfdwolff for this link.
JKW 16:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging QSAR and QSPR ?

  • Is the term QSAR broader accepted than QSPR?, e.g.
  • I suggested a merge, since the mining part is exactly the same. I do not see a difference in those two terms.

JKW 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who works in the field, I have only heard the term QSAR. So unless there are some major geographic differences in the use (I'm in the US), I agree the article should be under the QSAR title. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. JKW 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind incorporating the term "QSPR" (and its expansion) somewhere in the article text? I reached this page by clicking on a link to QSPR, and was surprised to find not one mention of it. -- 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Paradox?

Someone categorized this article under Category:Paradoxes, but I have to say on first reading I can't even understand the article enough to see what's paradoxical! Clarify please? 131.107.0.73 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article should be removed from the Paradox category unless some explanation is given. In a separate issue, the article is ridiculously unclear for use in a general encyclopedia. Ppe42 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

more spam deleted BillO'Slatter (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

I stumbled upon this wiki article while conducting a literature review for QSAR. I happened to notice that the text is primarily a word-for-word match with a published article "QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP (QSAR)" (Abhilash, 2010; International Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences). If this paper was referenced in the writing of the Wiki article, shouldn't it be appropriately cited in the reference section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxic.kharma (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a plagiarism, but to determine priority requires comparing this WP article with the 2010 article, which seems to be publicly available (courtesy of Elsevier).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The journal seems to be an on-line journal, which charges 750 USD for "publication". WP's article seems to have priority.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The originally posted PDF seems now to be unavailable. If someone will provide a link to it here, I will go to Elsevier, and find out what is going on with this author and article. Regardless of the direction of the plagiarism, it should not stand. 2601:246:C700:19D:7C8D:56CB:34EB:ED61 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Quantitative_structure–activity_relationship"