ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
Bridging between Structure-Based and Data-Driven Affinity Prediction.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 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
Protein-ligand binding affinity prediction is central in computer-aided drug design, and a wide range of physics-based, empirical, and machine learning (ML) tools have been developed for this purpose. Scientists are often tasked with choosing an optimal tool for a given discovery problem, which can be difficult. Physical models typically perform best in the absence of target-specific data but are often outperformed by ML models as the amount of data on a given target grows. Here, we introduce a method to smoothly transition from physics-based to knowledge-based predictions based on the uncertainty of each model. We apply this framework to combine docking scores with predictions from a Gaussian Process model trained on binding affinities from two industrial data sets. We show that combining structure-based and ML models significantly improves the prediction accuracy if training data is limited, whereas the weighting smoothly shifts from docking to ML as more data is acquired. We also show that structure-based methods, being insensitive to the distribution of binders across chemical space, can improve generalizability to new chemistries and increase the hit rate in active learning screens where the binder density varies among scaffolds in a virtual library. Thus, integrating predictions from multiple tools not only optimizes the use of limited experimental data but also ensures more robust performance compared to reliance on a single model.
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.