ReviewJournal of chemical information and modeling2025
Integrating Machine Learning into Free Energy Perturbation Workflows.
Review 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Small Molecule Versus Peptide Drug Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- AI-driven drug reposition for pathogens: a new paradigm in pandemic preparedness.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Review
- Advances in linear epitope-based subunit vaccines powered by artificial intelligence: current status and challenges.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Free energy perturbation (FEP) methods are among the most accurate tools in structure-based drug design for predicting protein-ligand binding affinities. However, their adoption remains limited due to high computational demands and complex setup procedures. This review explores how integrating machine learning (ML), especially active learning (AL) and deep learning (DL), can enhance the efficiency, accessibility, accuracy, and precision of FEP workflows. It examines three key areas where ML has been successfully applied: sampling strategies, protocol optimization, and force field development. AL algorithms can significantly reduce the number of FEP calculations needed during virtual screening by guiding the molecule selection. DL-based protein-ligand cofolding methods such as AlphaFold, NeuralPLexer, and DragonFold enable the automated generation of accurate complex structures for FEP, bypassing traditional docking and preparation steps. Additionally, ML-derived neural network potentials (NNPs), trained on quantum mechanical data, offer improved force field accuracy, although at the cost of higher computational expenses. This review emphasizes a hybrid approach combining human expertise with ML tools as the most promising strategy for accelerating and democratizing FEP-based drug discovery. Future developments in this interdisciplinary space are expected to expand the scope and impact of computer-aided drug design across pharmaceutical and materials science applications.
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.