ArticlePloS one2026
From ranking to decision: TASC-VS for calibration-aware top-k virtual screening.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual screening is most useful when it improves top-k prioritization under limited experimental budgets. We evaluated the full TASC-VS package on a curated 15-target subset of the LIT-PCBA virtual-screening benchmark. Methodologically, TASC-VS combines test-time adaptation (TTA), calibration, and uncertainty-aware ranking to support fixed-budget decisions. Coverage analysis showed that the subset is not full LIT-PCBA: it contains 23,250 evaluated molecule-target records and 181 positives, with positives in seven targets. Empirically, TASC-VS full showed modest, directionally consistent benefits over the evaluated comparators. On the seven positive targets, normalized enrichment factor at 1% (NEF1) and Boltzmann-enhanced discrimination of receiver operating characteristic (BEDROC) were 0.052 and 0.062 for TASC-VS full, compared with 0.0057 and 0.0279 for RTMScore-on-Vina-poses. Across all 15 targets, precision and false-positive count among the top 20 candidates (P20 and FP20) were 0.0433 and 19.13 for TASC-VS full, compared with 0.0067 and 19.87 for RTMScore-on-Vina-poses. Calibration improved reliability metrics, uncertainty penalization produced a small top-20 benefit, and TTA changed reliability slightly without driving the main ranking gain. Paired P20 analysis versus RTMScore-on-Vina-poses gave a mean benefit of 0.0367 (95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI), 0.0067-0.0733; raw Wilcoxon p = 0.026), but multiplicity-corrected values were not significant (Holm p = 1.0; Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) q = 0.322). An external Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E) stress test favored Vina over TASC-VS full. Thus, TASC-VS full provides calibration-aware top-k decision support on the curated LIT-PCBA subset; broader deployment requires separate validation.
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.