ArticleIn silico pharmacology2026
An interpretable consensus pipeline for candidate dopamine D2 receptor ligands.
Article in In silico pharmacology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning accelerates GPCR ligand discovery but often lacks interpretability and struggles to generalise to structurally novel chemical space. We present an integrated framework combining ensemble learning, SHAP interpretability, and complementary structure-based analyses to prioritise putative candidates for the dopamine D₂ receptor (DRD2). Models were trained on 1247 curated ChEMBL compounds using Bemis-Murcko scaffold-split validation. Feature ablation showed that Morgan fingerprints alone were sufficient for classification (AUC = 0.910), whereas combined physicochemical descriptors improved regression (R² = 0.606). Random Forest achieved scaffold-split classification AUC = 0.906 ± 0.016, and external PubChem BioAssay validation on non-overlapping compounds achieved AUC = 0.954. SHAP analysis identified nitrogen-containing substructural motifs consistent with Asp3.32 recognition, supporting the canonical DRD2 pharmacophore hypothesis. The pipeline recovered nine known DRD2-active compounds among the top 100 docked DrugBank candidates, corresponding to ≈ 14.6-fold enrichment over random selection. Virtual screening of DrugBank prioritised Roginolisib (DB18088), DB08010, and Bitopertin (DB12426) as putative DRD2 candidates. The near-zero correlation between ML predictions and docking scores ( Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40203-026-00749-7.
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.