ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2026
Framework for evaluating explainable AI in antimicrobial drug discovery.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods for molecular property prediction lack standardized evaluation criteria, preventing widespread deployment in drug development and hit optimisation, where proper understanding of structure-activity relationship is essential. We developed an evaluation framework for XAI using fragment-based explainability tests to compare XAI with different molecular representation and challenge the different XAI approaches for proper explanation of activity cliffs. The evaluation methods include essential scaffold recognition, scaffold sensitivity and substructure specificity for explaining activity cliff, and technical evaluation on model robustness and consistency. Using a curated dataset of antibiotic molecules we established three XAI models with fundamentally different molecular representation: Random Forest on chemical features using SHAP, CNN on sequence-based SMILES using token occlusion, and RGCN on molecular graphs with substructure masking. Together with detailed case study, we evaluated the explainability behaviours and quality of the different XAI approaches and highlighted their limitations. While all XAI approaches displayed good predictive and scaffold recognition capabilities, and comparable robustness and consistency, they displayed quite different explainability behaviour for activity cliffs, revealing their different utility for medicinal chemistry. SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION: A.T.O. performed the study, A.T.O and J.Z. contributed to the concept of the study and wrote the original manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
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.