Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41896379›Full record

ReviewJournal of molecular modeling2026

Free energy calculations in molecular modeling: from classical methods to machine learning.

Apoorva Purohit

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of molecular modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Apoorva Purohit, Mumbai, India. apoorva.pur@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0664-6972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextFree energy calculations have evolved from specialized theoretical tools to essential components of modern molecular design, particularly in pharmaceutical research where alchemical binding free energy methods now guide lead optimization decisions. Despite significant methodological advances over the past two decades, including statistically optimal estimators, enhanced sampling techniques, multi-dimensional nonequilibrium protocols, and improved force fields, current methods achieve reliable accuracy only for favorable systems involving rigid proteins and uncharged ligands. Challenges include inadequate sampling of protein flexibility, systematic biases from classical force fields for charged species, and convergence failures for systems with slow conformational transitions, limiting broader application to challenging but industrially relevant targets.

methodsThis review provides a comprehensive analysis of free energy calculation methodologies, from foundational approaches (thermodynamic integration, Bennett acceptance ratio) to advanced enhanced sampling strategies (replica exchange, metadynamics) and cutting-edge developments including machine learning integration. Current accuracy benchmarks are assessed through systematic analysis of community challenges and industrial validation studies, identifying specific failure modes and their underlying physical origins. This review emphasizes practical method selection criteria and realistic accuracy expectations while also examining how machine learning approaches-including neural network potentials, automated collective variable discovery, and active learning protocols-address limitations in sampling efficiency and force field accuracy.

Indexed as

Active learningAlchemical transformationsBennett acceptance ratioDrug discoveryEnhanced samplingForce field optimizationFree energyMachine learningNeural network potentialsNonequilibrium switchingSAMPL challengesThermodynamic integration

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.