ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
Modeling the Sensitivity of Large-Scale Virtual Screening to Scoring Function Accuracy, Artifacts, and Library Composition.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Chemical Distance-Based Acceleration of Large Library Docking with ChemSTEP.ACS central science · 2026Article
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
Large library docking has emerged as a productive approach for ligand discovery, yet a quantitative framework for understanding how docking performance responds to methodological improvements has been lacking. Here, we develop such a framework by modeling large-scale experiments from three previously published docking campaigns, in which 2,682 ligands had been synthesized and tested across the scoring landscape (poor scores, mediocre scores, high scores). The observed experimental hit-rate curves can be reproduced by a simple bivariate normal distribution model, where docking score is interpreted as a noisy predictor of binding free energy. To account for the plateauing and subsequent drop in hit rates often seen at highly favorable docking scores, we add a term for high-ranking docking artifacts, a phenomenon we observe across targets. From this model, three predictions about the sensitivity of docking performance emerge. First, even slight improvements in scoring accuracy would substantially improve both hit rates and hit affinities: quantitatively, a 0.1 increase in the correlation between docking score and binding affinity would justify accepting a ∼10-fold increase in computational cost per molecule, arguing for reinvestment in scoring function accuracy in library docking. Second, docking artifacts, while hard to anticipate, can come to dominate top-scoring lists as libraries grow. Physically testing molecules across a range of log-normalized ranks (pProp) is therefore essential to identify the peak hit rate for a given campaign. Third, prefiltering a library to enrich for molecules with appropriate physicochemical features increases the intrinsic hit rate and substantially boosts docking performance, particularly at tera-scale, with effects comparable to a meaningful improvement in scoring accuracy. Beyond docking, the model's parameters (affinity distribution, score-affinity correlation, artifact frequency) can be fit to any screening method with sufficient experimental data, providing an objective basis for benchmarking and comparing virtual screening approaches. These findings offer a practical framework for optimizing large-scale virtual screening as chemical libraries continue to grow.
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.