ReviewNature protocols2025
An explainable deep learning platform for molecular discovery.
Review in Nature protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-driven computational drug design: tools, workflow and challenges.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Development of an anemia detection model in emergency departments using lip region images based on medical knowledge and deep learning technology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Multi-omics and artificial intelligence for precision drug discovery and potential clinical applications.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for antimicrobial discovery and optimization.Current opinion in microbiology · 2026Review
- Review
- Graph neural networks driven acceleration in drug discovery.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2025Review
- Article
- AI-driven biomaterial design: an intelligent closed loop from reverse design to biological response.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning approaches have been increasingly applied to the discovery of novel chemical compounds. These predictive approaches can accurately model compounds and increase true discovery rates, but they are typically black box in nature and do not generate specific chemical insights. Explainable deep learning aims to 'open up' the black box by providing generalizable and human-understandable reasoning for model predictions. These explanations can augment molecular discovery by identifying structural classes of compounds with desired activity in lieu of lone compounds. Additionally, these explanations can guide hypothesis generation and make searching large chemical spaces more efficient. Here we present an explainable deep learning platform that enables vast chemical spaces to be mined and the chemical substructures underlying predicted activity to be identified. The platform relies on Chemprop, a software package implementing graph neural networks as a deep learning model architecture. In contrast to similar approaches, graph neural networks have been shown to be state of the art for molecular property prediction. Focusing on discovering structural classes of antibiotics, this protocol provides guidelines for experimental data generation, model implementation and model explainability and evaluation. This protocol does not require coding proficiency or specialized hardware, and it can be executed in as little as 1-2 weeks, starting from data generation and ending in the testing of model predictions. The platform can be broadly applied to discover structural classes of other small molecules, including anticancer, antiviral and senolytic drugs, as well as to discover structural classes of inorganic molecules with desired physical and chemical properties.
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.