ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2025
Robust Automated Truncation Point Selection for Molecular Simulations.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantities calculated from molecular simulations are often subject to an initial bias due to unrepresentative starting configurations. Initial data are usually discarded to reduce bias. Chodera's method for automated truncation point selection [J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 4, 1799-1805] is popular but has not been thoroughly assessed. We reformulate White's marginal standard error rule to provide a spectrum of truncation point selection heuristics that differ in their treatment of autocorrelation. These include a method effectively equivalent to Chodera's. We test these methods on ensembles of synthetic time series modeled on free energy change estimates from long absolute binding free energy calculations. Methods that more thoroughly account for autocorrelation often show late and variable truncation times, while methods that less thoroughly account for autocorrelation often show early truncation, relative to the optimal truncation point. This increases variance and bias, respectively. We recommend a method that achieves robust performance across our test sets by balancing these two extremes. None of the methods reliably detected insufficient sampling. All heuristics tested are implemented in the open-source Python package RED (github.com/fjclark/red).
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.