ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2025
Benchmarking 3D Structure-Based Molecule Generators.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- PockLigGPT: Pocket-Sequence-Conditioned Molecular Generation with GPTs and RL.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Revisiting Target-Aware de novo Molecular Generation with TarPass: Between Rational Design and Texas Sharpshooter.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- 3DOpt: Benchmark for Automated Design of 3D Molecular Structures across the Periodic Table.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Assessing the factors influencing the quality of pocket-conditioned 3D generative models.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Article
- Improving protein-ligand complex generation with force field guidance.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Article
- From Algorithms to Assets: A Comprehensive Review of AI's Role in Preclinical Drug Discovery and the Hurdles to Clinical Translation.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Molecular Design with Artificial Intelligence: Progress and Perspectives for Small Molecules.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- Scaling Biomedical Text-Mining: Transformers, GenAI, and Drug Discovery.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Structure-Based Generation of 3D Small-Molecule Drugs: Are We There Yet?Journal of medicinal chemistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To understand the benefits and drawbacks of 3D combinatorial and deep learning generators, a novel benchmark was created focusing on the recreation of important protein-ligand interactions and 3D ligand conformations. Using the BindingMOAD data set with a hold-out blind set, the sequential graph neural network generators, Pocket2Mol and PocketFlow, diffusion models, DiffSBDD and MolSnapper, and combinatorial genetic algorithms, AutoGrow4 and LigBuilderV3, were evaluated. It was discovered that deep learning methods fail to generate structurally valid molecules and 3D conformations, whereas combinatorial methods are slow and generate molecules that are prone to failing 2D MOSES filters. The results from this evaluation guide us toward improving deep learning structure-based generators by placing higher importance on structural validity, 3D ligand conformations, and recreation of important known active site interactions. This benchmark should be used to understand the limitations of future combinatorial and deep learning generators. The package is freely available under an Apache 2.0 license at github.com/gskcheminformatics/SBDD-benchmarking.
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.