ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2024
UNIQUE: A Framework for Uncertainty Quantification Benchmarking.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-objective optimization in the context of generative chemistry.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Uncertainty Quantification in Molecular Machine Learning for Property Predictions under Data Shifts.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Uncertainty quantification enables reliable deep learning for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) models have become key in decision-making for many disciplines, including drug discovery and medicinal chemistry. ML models are generally evaluated prior to their usage in high-stakes decisions, such as compound synthesis or experimental testing. However, no ML model is robust or predictive in all real-world scenarios. Therefore, uncertainty quantification (UQ) in ML predictions has gained importance in recent years. Many investigations have focused on developing methodologies that provide accurate uncertainty estimates for ML-based predictions. Unfortunately, there is no UQ strategy that consistently provides robust estimates about model's applicability on new samples. Depending on the dataset, prediction task, and algorithm, accurate uncertainty estimations might be unfeasible to obtain. Moreover, the optimum UQ metric also varies across applications, and previous investigations have shown a lack of consistency across benchmarks. Herein, the UNIQUE (UNcertaInty QUantification bEnchmarking) framework is introduced to facilitate a comparison of UQ strategies in ML-based predictions. This Python library unifies the benchmarking of multiple UQ metrics, including the calculation of nonstandard UQ metrics (combining information from the dataset and model), and provides a comprehensive evaluation. In this framework, UQ metrics are evaluated for different application scenarios, e.g., eliminating the predictions with the lowest confidence or obtaining a reliable uncertainty estimate for an acquisition function. Taken together, this library will help to standardize UQ investigations and evaluate new methodologies.
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.