Exact(31)
European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg 2. Free University of Berlin STITCH Molecular interactions between chemicals and proteins 7.5 million chemicals, 500,000 proteins, 370 organisms Aggregated from various biomedical and pharmaceutical databases 1.
Linked to primary literature 24 million triples; 8000 drug targets, 660,000 compounds Aggregated from various biomedical and pharmaceutical databases 1.
original dataset, 2. RDF version of dataset) DrugBank Chemical, pharmacological and pharmaceutical drug data; data about drug targets (e.g., sequences, structure, pathways) 767,000 triples; 4,800 drugs, 2,500 protein sequences Aggregated from various biomedical and pharmaceutical databases 1.
For each organism included in IntPath, the pathway data are collected from three representative databases: 1. KEGG; 2. WikiPathways; 3. One of the following four databases--YeastCyc, HumanCyc [ 14], and MTBRvCyc from the BioCyc collection [ 4, 5]; and MouseCyc [ 6].
Table 7 Packet-loss robustness factors derived from Databases 1, 3, 4, and 5 (random packet losses).
In the experiments, the proposed approach is evaluated by using two kinds of image databases: ( 1) public ViHASi image database and ( 2) original JSL image database.
Similar(29)
Compared to other databases [ 1, 2, 6– 8, 14, 15, 17], this additional information is not yet sufficient, such that users might need to search other databases at the present time.
Data were extracted from prospective studies conducted in our ICU and previous databases [ 1, 2, 5, 15, 26].
Many types of errors are common in research databases[ 1, 2, 12, 15].
A lower threshold for diagnosing severe sepsis in clinical practice likely accounts for the generally better outcome metrics identified in epidemiologic studies using administrative databases [ 1, 2, 5] than has been reported in clinical trials [ 20, 27- 29].
Indeed, many analyses of conserved coding or noncoding sequences have been made by classifying a sequence as coding (or non-coding) following a comparison with protein databases [ 1, 17, 18].
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com