ReviewJournal of cheminformatics2026
AI-assisted interpretation of Markush structures in pharmaceutical patents: a review of emerging tools, datasets, and challenges.
Review in Journal of cheminformatics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated interpretation of Markush structures widely used in pharmaceutical patents to claim large families of related compounds remains challenging due to non-machine-readable structure images, variable R-groups, dependency rules, scaffold diversity, and heterogeneous claim language. Challenges include attachment points and stereochemistry, nested/conditional dependencies, and inconsistent drafting conventions that hinder faithful enumeration. Early rule-based cheminformatics systems parsed claims and mapped Markush representations into searchable formats, but struggled with nested dependencies, cross-references, and multimodal (text + image) descriptions. More recently, artificial intelligence (AI) methods have been introduced including language-based tools, vision-based tools, and multimodal or hybrid tools. Language-based tools increasingly use large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing (NLP) capabilities to extract variable definitions, constraints, and dependency graphs from claim text; vision systems translate structure depictions into machine-readable formats (e.g., SMILES, CXSMILES); multimodal or hybrid pipelines align both for end-to-end interpretation. Emerging datasets support these efforts, though licensing, family-wise leakage, and standardized splits remain inconsistent. This narrative review synthesizes tools, datasets, and evaluation practices for AI-assisted Markush interpretation, identifies persistent failure modes, and maps open legal questions (sufficiency, enablement, enforceability). We outline priorities for the field; transparent benchmarks with family-aware splits, interpretable constraint handling, and workflows aligned with U.S. Patent Office practice, near-term use is decision support, not legal advice.
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.