Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40495205›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2025

UMAP-based clustering split for rigorous evaluation of AI models for virtual screening on cancer cell lines.

Qianrong Guo, Saiveth Hernandez-Hernandez, Pedro J Ballester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial Intelligence-Guided Phenotypic Drug Repurposing Against Streptococcus pneumoniae.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Defining the Data set Defines the QSAR Claim.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Qianrong GuoDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Saiveth Hernandez-HernandezDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Pedro J BallesterDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. p.ballester@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual Screening (VS) of large compound libraries using Artificial Intelligence (AI) models is a highly effective approach for early drug discovery. Data splitting is crucial for benchmarking the performance of such AI models. Traditional random data splits often result in structurally similar molecules in both training and test sets, which conflict with the reality of VS libraries that typically contain structurally diverse compounds. To tackle this challenge, scaffold split, which groups molecules by shared core structure, and Butina clustering, which clusters molecules by chemotypes, have long been used. However, we show that these methods still introduce high similarities between training and test sets, leading to overestimated model performance. Our study examined four representative AI models across 60 NCI-60 datasets, each comprising approximately 33,000-54,000 molecules tested on different cancer cell lines. Each dataset was split in four ways: random, scaffold, Butina clustering and the more realistic Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) clustering. Using Linear Regression, Random Forest, Transformer-CNN, and GEM, we trained a total of 8400 models and evaluated under four splitting methods. These comprehensive results show that UMAP split provides more challenging and realistic benchmarks for model evaluation, followed by Butina splits, then scaffold splits and closely after random splits. Consequently, we recommend using UMAP splits instead of overly optimistic Butina splits and especially scaffold splits for molecular property prediction, including VS. Lastly, we illustrate how misaligned ROC AUC is with VS goals, despite its common use. The code and datasets for reproducibility are available at https://github.com/Rong830/UMAP_split_for_VS and archived in https://zenodo.org/records/14736486 . Scientific contribution This work advances the field by introducing UMAP clustering as a robust splitting method for molecular datasets, improving over traditional methods like Butina clustering and especially scaffold splits. It offers a new evaluation framework to benchmark AI models under more realistic conditions, fostering progress in molecular property prediction. The findings also show how inappropriate the use of ROC AUC for virtual screening (VS) continues to be, despite its popularity, emphasizing the need for context-specific evaluation metrics.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBenchmarkingMolecular property predictionQSARVirtual screening

Identifiers

PMID40495205
PMCPMC12153141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.