Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40899589›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2025

All That Glitters Is Not Gold: Importance of Rigorous Evaluation of Proteochemometric Models.

Polina Avdiunina, Shamieraah Jamal, Filipp Gusev, Olexandr Isayev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Polina AvdiuninaDepartment of Chemistry, Mellon College of Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.
Shamieraah JamalDepartment of Chemistry, Mellon College of Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-8548-4712
Filipp GusevDepartment of Chemistry, Mellon College of Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1167-345X
Olexandr IsayevDepartment of Chemistry, Mellon College of Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7581-8497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteochemometric models (PCMs) are used in computational drug discovery to employ both protein and ligand representations jointly for bioactivity prediction. While machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have come to dominate PCMs, often serving as a basis for scoring functions, rigorous evaluation standards have not always been consistently applied. In this study, using kinase-ligand bioactivity prediction as a model system, we highlight the critical roles of data set curation, permutation testing, class imbalances, and various data splitting strategies for mitigating plausible data leakage and embedding quality in determining model performance. Our findings indicate that data splitting and class imbalances are the most critical factors affecting PCM performance, emphasizing the challenges in the generalizing ability of ML/DL-PCMs. We evaluated various protein-ligand descriptors and embeddings, including those augmented with multiple sequence alignment information. However, permutation testing consistently demonstrated that protein embeddings contributed minimally to PCM efficacy. This study advocates for the adoption of stringent evaluation standards to enhance the generalizability of models to out-of-distribution data and improve benchmarking practices.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryProteinsDeep LearningLigandsMachine LearningLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID40899589
PMCPMC12529762

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.