Table 1. Comparative performance between CSM-Lig and similar methods and scoring functions on the PDBbind 2007 core set.

Method/Scoring Function	RP	RS	SD
CSM-Lig	0.751	0.761	1.617
RF-Score::Elem-v2	0.803	0.797	1.540
RF-Score::Elem-v1	0.776	0.762	1.580
X-Score::HMScore	0.644*	0.705	1.830**
DrugScoreCSD	0.569*	0.627*	1.960**
SYBYK::ChemScore	0.555*	0.585*	1.980**
DS::PLP1	0.545*	0.588*	2.000**
GOLD::ASP	0.534*	0.577*	2.020**
SYBYL::G-Score	0.492*	0.536*	2.080**
DS::LUDI3	0.487*	0.478*	2.090**
DS::LigScore2	0.464*	0.507*	2.120**
GlideScore-XP	0.457*	0.435*	2.140**
DS::PMF	0.445*	0.448*	2.140**
GOLD::ChemScore	0.441*	0.452*	2.150**
NHA	0.431*	0.517*	2.150**
SYBYL::D-Score	0.392*	0.447*	2.190**
IMP::RankScore	0.322*	0.348*	2.250**
DS::Jain	0.316*	0.346*	2.240*
GOLD::GoldScore	0.295*	0.322*	2.290**
SYBYL::PMF-Score	0.268*	0.273*	2.290**
SYBYL::F-Score	0.216*	0.243*	2.350**

Pearson (R_P) and Spearman Correlations (R_S), as well as Standard Deviation (SD) are given. Results from similar methods directly obtained from Balester et al. (2014). Full references of the listed methods can be found on Table S2 of Supplementary Material. *P ≤ 0.05 compared to CSM-Lig by Fisher r − to − transformation. **P ≤ 0.05 compared to CSM-Lig by F-test.