ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2024
Improved Prediction of Ligand-Protein Binding Affinities by Meta-modeling.
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.
- Distillation enables scalable high-fidelity virtual screening across ultra-large chemical libraries.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Structure-guided compound prioritization strategy for virtual screening identifies putative binders for the nuclear receptor LRH-1.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Diffusion Models at the Drug Discovery Frontier: A Review on Generating Small Molecules Versus Therapeutic Peptides.Biology · 2025Review
- Pharmacological Evaluation of active compounds in papaya associated with thrombocytopenia inhibition in dengue patients through in silico approaches.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The accurate screening of candidate drug ligands against target proteins through computational approaches is of prime interest to drug development efforts. Such virtual screening depends in part on methods to predict the binding affinity between ligands and proteins. Many computational models for binding affinity prediction have been developed, but with varying results across targets. Given that ensembling or meta-modeling approaches have shown great promise in reducing model-specific biases, we develop a framework to integrate published force-field-based empirical docking and sequence-based deep learning models. In building this framework, we evaluate many combinations of individual base models, training databases, and several meta-modeling approaches. We show that many of our meta-models significantly improve affinity predictions over base models. Our best meta-models achieve comparable performance to state-of-the-art deep learning tools exclusively based on 3D structures while allowing for improved database scalability and flexibility through the explicit inclusion of features such as physicochemical properties or molecular descriptors. We further demonstrate improved generalization capability by our models using a large-scale benchmark of affinity prediction as well as a virtual screening application benchmark. Overall, we demonstrate that diverse modeling approaches can be ensembled together to gain meaningful improvement in binding affinity prediction.
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.