Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37833262›Full record

ArticleNature communications2023

A systematic study of key elements underlying molecular property prediction.

Jianyuan Deng, Zhibo Yang, Hehe Wang, Iwao Ojima, Dimitris Samaras, Fusheng Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Tsetlin Machine: A "Third Way" in QSAR Modeling.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jianyuan DengStony Brook University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0647-1287
Zhibo YangStony Brook University, Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Hehe WangStony Brook University, Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Iwao OjimaStony Brook University, Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3628-1161
Dimitris SamarasStony Brook University, Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1373-0294
Fusheng WangStony Brook University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA. fusheng.wang@stonybrook.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9369-9361

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been widely applied in drug discovery with a major task as molecular property prediction. Despite booming techniques in molecular representation learning, key elements underlying molecular property prediction remain largely unexplored, which impedes further advancements in this field. Herein, we conduct an extensive evaluation of representative models using various representations on the MoleculeNet datasets, a suite of opioids-related datasets and two additional activity datasets from the literature. To investigate the predictive power in low-data and high-data space, a series of descriptors datasets of varying sizes are also assembled to evaluate the models. In total, we have trained 62,820 models, including 50,220 models on fixed representations, 4200 models on SMILES sequences and 8400 models on molecular graphs. Based on extensive experimentation and rigorous comparison, we show that representation learning models exhibit limited performance in molecular property prediction in most datasets. Besides, multiple key elements underlying molecular property prediction can affect the evaluation results. Furthermore, we show that activity cliffs can significantly impact model prediction. Finally, we explore into potential causes why representation learning models can fail and show that dataset size is essential for representation learning models to excel.

Identifiers

PMID37833262
PMCPMC10575948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.