Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Based on the Graph Edit Distance.

Chemical compounds can be represented as attributed graphs. An attributed graph is a mathematical model of an object composed of two types of representations: nodes and edges. Nodes are individual components, and edges are relations between these components. In this case, pharmacophore-type node descriptions are represented by nodes and chemical bounds by edges. If we want to obtain the bioactivity dissimilarity between two chemical compounds, a distance between attributed graphs can be used. The Graph Edit Distance allows computing this distance, and it is defined as the cost of transforming one graph into another. Nevertheless, to define this dissimilarity, the transformation cost must be properly tuned. The aim of this paper is to analyse the structural-based screening methods to verify the quality of the Harper transformation costs proposal and to present an algorithm to learn these transformation costs such that the bioactivity dissimilarity is properly defined in a ligand-based virtual screening application. The goodness of the dissimilarity is represented by the classification accuracy. Six publicly available datasets-CAPST, DUD-E, GLL&GDD, NRLiSt-BDB, MUV and ULS-UDS-have been used to validate our methodology and show that with our learned costs, we obtain the highest ratios in identifying the bioactivity similarity in a structurally diverse group of molecules.

Clinical outcomes and safety of passive leg raising in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are data suggesting that passive leg raising (PLR) improves hemodynamics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of PLR during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial with blinded assessment of the outcomes that assigned adults OHCA to be treated with PLR or in the flat position. The trial was conducted in the Camp de Tarragona region. The main end point was survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome defined as cerebral performance category (CPC 1-2). To study possible adverse effects, we assessed the presence of pulmonary complications on the first chest X-rays, brain edema on the computerized tomography (CT) in survivors and brain and lungs weights from autopsies in non-survivors. RESULTS: In total, 588 randomized cases were included, 301 were treated with PLR and 287 were controls. Overall, 67.8% were men and the median age was 72 (IQR 60-82) years. At hospital discharge, 3.3% in the PLR group and 3.5% in the control group were alive with CPC 1-2 (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4-2.3, p = 0.91). No significant differences in survival at hospital admission were found in all patients (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.7-1.6, p = 0.95) and among patients with an initial shockable rhythm (OR 1.7; 95% CI 0.8-3.4, p = 0.15). There were no differences in pulmonary complication rates in chest X-rays [7 (25.9%) vs 5 (17.9%), p = 0.47] and brain edema on CT [5 (29.4%) vs 10 (32.6%), p = 0.84]. There were no differences in lung weight [1223 mg (IQR 909-1500) vs 1239 mg (IQR 900-1507), p = 0.82] or brain weight [1352 mg (IQR 1227-1457) vs 1380 mg (IQR 1255-1470), p = 0.43] among the 106 autopsies performed. CONCLUSION: In this trial, PLR during CPR did not improve survival to hospital discharge with CPC 1-2. No evidence of adverse effects has been found. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01952197, registration date: September 27, 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01952197 .