ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2024
FEP Augmentation as a Means to Solve Data Paucity Problems for Machine Learning in Chemical Biology.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Docking Protocols on Predicting Alternative Binding Modes.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Active Learning FEP Using 3D-QSAR for Prioritizing Bioisosteres in Medicinal Chemistry.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2025Article
- How does machine learning augment alchemical binding free energy calculations?Future medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- The computationally guided design of selective targeters of multiple proteins (STaMPs) as a new opportunity for small molecule drug discovery.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the realm of medicinal chemistry, the primary objective is to swiftly optimize a multitude of chemical properties of a set of compounds to yield a clinical candidate poised for clinical trials. In recent years, two computational techniques, machine learning (ML) and physics-based methods, have evolved substantially and are now frequently incorporated into the medicinal chemist's toolbox to enhance the efficiency of both hit optimization and candidate design. Both computational methods come with their own set of limitations, and they are often used independently of each other. ML's capability to screen extensive compound libraries expediently is tempered by its reliance on quality data, which can be scarce especially during early-stage optimization. Contrarily, physics-based approaches like free energy perturbation (FEP) are frequently constrained by low throughput and high cost by comparison; however, physics-based methods are capable of making highly accurate binding affinity predictions. In this study, we harnessed the strength of FEP to overcome data paucity in ML by generating virtual activity data sets which then inform the training of algorithms. Here, we show that ML algorithms trained with an FEP-augmented data set could achieve comparable predictive accuracy to data sets trained on experimental data from biological assays. Throughout the paper, we emphasize key mechanistic considerations that must be taken into account when aiming to augment data sets and lay the groundwork for successful implementation. Ultimately, the study advocates for the synergy of physics-based methods and ML to expedite the lead optimization process. We believe that the physics-based augmentation of ML will significantly benefit drug discovery, as these techniques continue to evolve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.