ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2026
De Novo Structure Prediction from Tandem Mass Spectra: Algorithms, Benchmarks, and Limitations.
Review in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Scaffold-based evaluation metrics for fair comparison of molecular generators.Journal of cheminformatics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The identification of unknown molecules from analytical data remains a fundamental challenge in chemistry, with critical implications for drug discovery, metabolomics, and natural product research. While tandem mass spectrometry provides rich structural fingerprints, most spectra are absent from reference libraries, spurring the development of de novo generative models. However, their true accuracy has been difficult to assess. Our critical analysis reveals that state-of-the-art models achieve only 4.1% top-10 accuracy on rigorously leakage-controlled benchmarks like MassSpecGym. This sobering figure stands in stark contrast to earlier, overly optimistic reports, a discrepancy we attribute to pervasive data leakage in naive data splits. This review traces the field's rapid evolution through three architectural eras: from fingerprint-conditioned RNN pipelines to end-to-end sequence models and, most recently, to graph-native diffusion under molecular-formula constraints. We demonstrate that explicitly conditioning generative models on a molecular formula significantly improves exact-match accuracy compared to unconstrained baselines. Crucially, our analysis distinguishes between two experimentally relevant paradigms: formula-conditioned generation for true unknown discovery and scaffold-based generation for hypothesis-driven research. While the latter shows high potential with oracle scaffolds, its performance drastically drops with predicted ones, revealing a critical bottleneck. To build the next generation of reliable tools, we propose a clear roadmap centered on standardized, leakage-aware benchmarking and transparent reporting.
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.