ArticleNature communications2026
Assessing conformation validity and rationality of deep learning-generated 3D molecules.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. 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.
- ScrambleBench: a workflow for comparative assessment of structure-based de novo generative models.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Article
- Assessing conformation validity and rationality of deep learning-generated 3D molecules.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have revolutionized the field of 3D molecule generation. However, the lack of effective evaluation methods for 3D conformations limits further improvements. Current techniques, in order to achieve the necessary speed for evaluating large number of AI-generated molecules, often rely on empirical geometric metrics that do not adequately capture various conformational anomalies, or on molecular mechanics energy metrics that exhibit low accuracy and lack atomic or torsional details. To address this gap, we propose a two-stage approach that achieves both high speed and quantum mechanical level accuracy. The first stage, termed the validity test, employs an AI-derived force field to identify atoms with elevated energy resulting from implausible neighboring environments. The second stage, known as the rationality test, utilizes a deep learning network trained on data with density functional theory accuracy to detect rotatable bonds with high torsional energies. To demonstrate the functionality of our evaluation system, we applied our approach to five recently reported 3D molecule generation AI models across 102 targets in Directory of Useful Decoys-Enhanced dataset. To facilitate accessibility for the academic community, our method is available as an open-source package.
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.