ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Physical priors improve performance of structure-based binding affinity models.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Structure-based drug discovery is a widely used paradigm for the rational design of novel small molecule therapeutics. However, the benefits conferred by the use of structural information has seen limited adoption in machine learning, where ligand-only ("2D") models are still the industry standard for molecular property or binding affinity prediction. Structure-based ("3D") ML models for binding-affinity prediction promise to present a clear advantage, but have not yet overtaken existing 2D models. Here, we show that physics-based priors can improve predictive performance of structure-based models by comparing different model architectures with varying physical priors on several prediction tasks. We present the Modular Training and Evaluation of Neural Networks (mtenn) package, where we decompose affinity prediction into separate steps of embedding structure into learned representations and combining those embeddings into a predicted binding affinity. We consider both E(3)-invariant and E(3)-equivariant architectures to determine the importance of encoding roto-translational inductive biases, as well as different methods for combining learned embeddings. By first optimizing several aspects of model construction using the general purpose PDBBind dataset, we are able to improve the performance and data efficiency of structure-based models. When subsequently trained and evaluated on the COVID Moonshot small molecule drug discovery dataset, our tuned models perform on par with industry standard ligand-only models. Our decomposed model framework highlights that encoding some physical priors improves model performance, while more complex biases such as equivariance offer limited benefit. Additionally, structure-based models generalize better to an unseen target and display higher training efficiency. Overall, these results emphasize that structure-based models benefit from their ability to incorporate physics-informed constraints, giving promising directions for model architecture development. These results also suggest that the strength of these models may be in tasks specifically aimed at generalizability, providing guidelines for their use in early-stage drug discovery campaigns.
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.