ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Structural Knowledge Is What Matters in Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Binding affinity prediction is about estimating the degree to which a drug binds to a protein. Predicting the binding affinity between a drug and a protein in a computational process helps researchers filter huge libraries of compounds before performing expensive biochemical lab experiments. Currently, there is interest in predicting binding affinity through computational pattern recognition or machine learning methods instead of the classical physics-inspired methods, which are computationally intractable except for tiny chemical compounds. In the last five years, several machine learning-based methods have been presented, whose experimental validations have achieved increasing Pearson coefficients while trained and tested in the PDBBind 2016 and CASF 2016 databases, respectively. These methods have an important diversity of architectures that provide different properties. The aim of this paper is to discern which binary properties (existence or absence) of these methods make them return higher Pearson coefficients. Basically, the properties introduced are related to the level of structural knowledge, the presence of 3D information, and the introduction of the relationship between the drug and the protein in the input of the model. The
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.