ArticleACS medicinal chemistry letters2026
Benchmarking Classical and Quantum Machine Learning for Potency Prediction across Ten Therapeutically Relevant Targets.
Article in ACS medicinal chemistry letters, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantum machine learning (QML) is widely proposed as a successor to classical models in cheminformatics, but rigorous benchmarks under realistic contemporary data constraints remain scarce. We compared two quantum classifiers (quantum support vector machine, variational quantum classifier) against gradient boosting, random forest, and neural network baselines across ten therapeutically diverse protein targets (45-18,286 compounds), using Bemis-Murcko scaffold-stratified cross-validation. Across 48 valid target-threshold tasks, no model class globally dominated (best-quantum versus best-classical Wilcoxon p = 0.189). Classical ensembles excelled on data-rich, structurally coherent targets (e.g., BACE1), while quantum kernels held a marginal edge on sparse, structurally bimodal targets (e.g., Mtb DprE1). A potential predictor of quantum advantage was the per-target best-quantum/best-classical model Cohen's κ gap (Spearman ρ = +0.685, p = 0.029), suggesting that decision calibration, not ranking, drives QML's edge. We propose the κ gap as a preliminary low-cost screening criterion for prioritizing QML in early stage discovery campaigns.
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.