ArticleACS omega2025
Comprehensive Benchmark Study of Diffusion-Based 3D Molecular Generation Models.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical generative modeling for the design of multi-component systems.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Article
- Diffusion Models at the Drug Discovery Frontier: A Review on Generating Small Molecules Versus Therapeutic Peptides.Biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep diffusion models have emerged as powerful tools for de novo molecular generation in three-dimensional (3D) conformational space, leveraging forward noising and reverse denoising processes to learn the probability distributions of molecular geometries and their physicochemical properties. However, systematic comparisons of their performance remain limited. Here, we present a comprehensive benchmark of nine state-of-the-art diffusion-based 3D molecular generative models trained on two representative data sets, QM9 and GEOM-Drugs. Evaluation was performed using four types of metrics, encompassing both two-dimensional (2D) structural features and 3D geometric characteristics. Our results demonstrate that nearly all models perform worse on 3D metrics compared to 2D metrics. Most generated 3D structures exhibit significant deviations from the energy-minimized reference, highlighting the persistent challenges in achieving accurate 3D spatial modeling. Furthermore, their effectiveness declines when producing 3D structures of larger and more complex molecules. Among the models, MiDi and EQGAT-diff consistently outperform the other models, with MiDi showing particularly robust performance. In summary, this study highlights recent advances in deep diffusion models for 3D molecular generation while delineating the key challenges that need to be addressed by next-generation approaches.
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.