ReviewJournal of computer-aided molecular design2026
Integrating traditional and modern approaches for comprehensive pharmacophore map validation in drug discovery.
Review in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacophore modelling is widely used in drug discovery to highlight the key chemical features required for biological activity and to screen large libraries for promising hits. The usefulness of any pharmacophore model, however, depends on how well it is validated. This review brings together the main strategies for assessing pharmacophore model quality, ranging from classical metrics such as ROC-AUC, enrichment factors, and BEDROC to decoy-based evaluations such as DUD-E, as well as visual tools including cumulative gain and lift charts. We also discuss validation workflows built into platforms such as Schrödinger’s Phase module. Each method is described in terms of what it measures, early enrichment, discrimination between actives and decoys, or overall model robustness, and where it is most helpful. By outlining the strengths and limitations of these approaches, this review provides practical guidance for selecting appropriate validation methods and improving the reliability and predictive value of pharmacophore models in virtual screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41493671What 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.