ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Assessing the Generalizability of Machine Learning and Physics-Based Methods with DNA-Encoded Libraries.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predicting protein-ligand binding is a central challenge in computational drug discovery, and while machine learning (ML) and co-folding methods have advanced rapidly, their ability to generalize beyond training or parameterization regimes remains insufficiently understood. DNA-encoded libraries (DELs) enable ultra-large screening of billions of molecules simultaneously, providing a useful testbed for evaluating these approaches at scale. A recent NeurIPS competition revealed that even top performing ML models trained on DEL data failed at generalizing to out-of-distribution (OOD) chemical space. We investigated whether integrating structural modeling could bridge this generalization gap. We systematically assessed state-of-the-art ML, docking, and co-folding methods including Schrodinger Glide, Rosetta GALigandDock, and Boltz-2 with three biologically diverse protein targets screened against libraries containing multiple DEL synthesis formats. While ML excels in-distribution, OOD hit discrimination is dependent on both the target and ligand context, with no single method consistently dominating. These findings demonstrate that benchmark performance alone is insufficient to predict OOD performance, highlighting the need for system-dependent evaluation of binding prediction methods. We provide an open-source package for assessing protein-ligand prediction methods and analyzing high-throughput screening data: DEL-iver.
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.