ArticleDigital discovery2025
ACES-GNN: can graph neural network learn to explain activity cliffs?
Article in Digital discovery, 2025. 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.
- PAD4-DB: A Curated Structure-Activity Resource Reveals Hub-Organized Activity Cliffs and Scaffold-Dependent SAR Ruggedness in PAD4 Inhibitors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for materials discovery: application to catalysts for the HER and ORR.Chemical science · 2026Article
- Structure-Aware Compound-Protein Affinity Prediction via Graph Neural Networks with Group Lasso Regularization.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Bioactivity Deep Learning for Complex Structure-Free Compound-Protein Interaction Prediction.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have revolutionized molecular property prediction by leveraging graph-based representations, yet their opaque decision-making processes hinder broader adoption in drug discovery. This study introduces the Activity-Cliff-Explanation-Supervised GNN (ACES-GNN) framework, designed to simultaneously improve predictive accuracy and interpretability by integrating explanation supervision for activity cliffs (ACs) into GNN training. ACs, defined by structurally similar molecules with significant potency differences, pose challenges for traditional models due to their reliance on shared structural features. By aligning model attributions with chemist-friendly interpretations, the ACES-GNN framework bridges the gap between prediction and explanation. Validated across 30 pharmacological targets, ACES-GNN consistently enhances both predictive accuracy and attribution quality for ACs compared to unsupervised GNNs. Our results demonstrate a positive correlation between improved predictions and accurate explanations, offering a robust and adaptable framework to better understand and interpret ACs. This work underscores the potential of explanation-guided learning to advance interpretable artificial intelligence in molecular modeling and drug discovery.
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.